Electrical Stimulation Promotes Stem Cell Neural Differentiation in Tissue Engineering

Abstract

Nerve injuries and neurodegenerative disorders remain serious challenges, owing to the poor treatment outcomes of in situ neural stem cell regeneration. The most promising treatment for such injuries and disorders is stem cell-based therapies, but there remain obstacles in controlling the differentiation of stem cells into fully functional neuronal cells. Various biochemical and physical approaches have been explored to improve stem cell-based neural tissue engineering, among which electrical stimulation has been validated as a promising one both in vitro and in vivo. Here, we summarize the most basic waveforms of electrical stimulation and the conductive materials used for the fabrication of electroactive substrates or scaffolds in neural tissue engineering. Various intensities and patterns of electrical current result in different biological effects, such as enhancing the proliferation, migration, and differentiation of stem cells into neural cells. Moreover, conductive materials can be used in delivering electrical stimulation to manipulate the migration and differentiation of stem cells and the outgrowth of neurites on two- and three-dimensional scaffolds. Finally, we also discuss the possible mechanisms in enhancing stem cell neural differentiation using electrical stimulation. We believe that stem cell-based therapies using biocompatible conductive scaffolds under electrical stimulation and biochemical induction are promising for neural regeneration.

1. Introduction

Nerve diseases, including axon loss, nerve injury, and degenerative nerve disease, are a severe economic burden to society. Current medical and surgical strategies and physiotherapy are common treatments for nerve diseases. These strategies alleviate pain after nerve injury, maintain the continuity of nerves, and delay disease progression but are difficult to perform, time-consuming, expensive, and do not always result in sufficient functional recovery and nerve regeneration. Stem cells, including neural stem cells (NSCs) and other exogenous multipotent stem cells, have the ability to differentiate into neural lineages. Accumulating evidence has indicated that stem cell therapy is a promising option in regenerating damaged neurons, assisting functional restoration through the differentiation of stem cells into neurons and glial cells, secreting cytokines and growth factors, activating endogenous repair through immunomodulation, and inhibiting cell apoptosis and fibrosis. In addition, numerous clinical trials have been initiated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stem cell therapy in patients with various nerve diseases.

A prerequisite in applying stem cells to nerve tissue engineering is controlling the differentiation of stem cells into neural cells with precision and efficacy. Many biophysical strategies, particularly electrical stimulation (ES), have been made to improve the efficiency of stem cell neural differentiation. ES has been demonstrated capable of enhancing the proliferation and differentiation of stem cells, inducing guided cell migration, and promoting the growth and elongation of neurites [1–4]. In addition, low-frequency ES has also been proven effective clinically in regenerating nerves, hence leading to regeneration and functional recovery [5]; however, the effects of ES on stem cell neural differentiation in different studies slightly vary, owing to the fact that ES frequency, duration, voltage, and the conductive and electroactive material applied varied according to the type of stem cells and loading systems. Thus, the optimal setting for the ES of different stem cells for nerve tissue engineering is difficult to specify. In this review, we summarize various methods in delivering ES to achieve stem cell neural differentiation and maturation both in vitro and in vivo. We also analyse the potential mechanisms of ES in stem cell differentiation. Furthermore, we discuss here our perspectives on the future of the clinical application of ES on stem cells for the treatment of nerve diseases.

2. Electrical Stimulation Enhances Stem Cell Neural Differentiation

Stem cells can self-renew and differentiate into multiple cell types. In recent decades, many different stem cell types including NSCs, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have been investigated in vitro and in vivo to assess the therapeutic potential of stem cell therapies [6–10]. Depending on the origin of stem cells, they exhibit different levels of potency. NSCs located in the specific regions of developing and adult human brain are tissue-specific stem cells and can terminally differentiate into all neural lineages, including neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes [11]. The application of NSCs is considered a promising therapeutic strategy for treating of central nervous system diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and spinal cord repair [12–14]. Preclinical researches NSCs derived from fetal tissues, ESCs, and iPSCs showed enhanced recovery after stroke [15–17] and comparable neurological disorders [18, 19]. Due to the similarity of iPSCs and human ESCs (hESCs), similar approaches for the induction of their neural differentiation can be used. Hu et al. compared the neural differentiation capacity between iPSCs and hESCs. They found that iPSCs have the same gene expression pattern and period required to differentiate into functional neurons as ESCs but with increased variability and reduced efficiency [20]. Clinical studies in which ESCs and iPSCs were used for the treatment of nerve diseases are listed in Table 1. At present, most clinical research aims to generate iPSCs from patients with nerve disease to establish disease models, and only a few aim to differentiate iPSCs into neurons and glia for cell transplantation. MSCs are the most commonly used stem cells and can be derived from tissues, such as the bone marrow, adipose tissues, and umbilical cord. Some animal studies have shown that transplanted MSCs can migrate to injured sites of the brain, differentiate into neuron-like cells expressing microtubule association protein-2 (MAP2) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and improve neurological function after stroke and spinal cord injury [21, 22]. The differentiation capacity of MSCs from different sources was reportedly not the same. Umbilical cord, bone marrow, and adipose tissue-derived MSCs have been used in clinical research for a number of nerve diseases such as spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and stroke (Figure 1) [23].

Figure 1 

Proportion of different nerve disease types for which MSCs were used as a treatment in clinical trials.

There are complex and varied regulatory networks involved in the neural differentiation of stem cells under different conditions. Certainly, the use of growth factors and small molecules remains the predominant method for stem cell differentiation; however, the use of nonbiochemical methods to assist stem cell differentiation has attracted the attention of many researchers. As neurons are electrically active cells, exogenous ES can provide artificial stimulation that transmits electrical charge directly to the cells. The potential positive effect of exogenous ES on nerve regeneration following injury has been extensively studied. It has been shown that ES can improve neural cell proliferation [24] and the function of neurons and Schwann cells when subjected to a voltage gradient during neural development and postinjury [25]. Exogenous ES has been reported to enhance stem cell neuronal migration [26], differentiation [27], neurite outgrowth [28], and intracellular Ca²⁺ dynamics in vitro [29]. Regarding in vivo applications, due to the lack of effective clinical treatments for nerve injuries and neurodegenerative diseases, ES generated from an external power source or from electroactive materials has been explored as a complement and applied in stem cell therapy and tissue engineering since many years ago. Numerous studies on ES therapy have been conducted in animal models and humans and promising results have been reported [30–32]. Exogenous ES in animal models not only guides the migration of stem cells and stem cell-derived neural cells [33–35], but also significantly contributes to stem cell neuron differentiation [36]. In clinical applications, ES therapy as a nonsurgical therapeutic modality is widely adopted by physical therapists and physicians. A variety of ES models have been developed and applied, based on the power sources, including direct current (DC) electric fields, alternating current (AC) electric fields, and pulsed current electric fields. A better understanding of the fundamental principles underlying the ES regulated stem cell neural differentiation would provide clues for developing new strategies for stem cell therapy and devices for nerve tissue engineering.

2.1. Effect of Direct Current on Stem Cell Neural Differentiation

DC indicates that the magnitude and direction of the electric charge is consistent, and it can be produced by batteries, fuel cells, and generators with commutators. Different types of stem cells or their differentiated neuron-like cells respond differently to ES (Table 2). Min et al. reported that a small DC can guide the migration of human iPSCs (hiPSCs) and hESCs with different electrotaxis depending on distinct signalling pathways. They reported that DC stimulation less than 30 mV/mm guided the migration of hiPSCs to the anode in both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) culture conditions and that the migration rate was voltage-dependent [37], whereas 16 mV/mm DC ES guided the migration of NSCs derived from hESCs to the cathode [35]. In addition, the effect of ES on neural differentiation regulation is cell type specific. The sensitivity of MSCs to the changes in electric field strength was reportedly higher than that of NSCs [38]. More studies are necessary to optimize the parameters of DC for each stem cell type because of the cell type-specific sensitivity to ES.

DC stimulation can also guide NSC migration and enhance NSC differentiation and neural maturation. In a DC electric field of 11.5 V/cm, NSCs tended to specifically differentiate into neurons rather than astrocytes or oligodendrocytes [39]. Kobelt et al. [40] reported that a short duration of ES (10 min/day of DC stimulation at 0.53 or 1.83 V/m) for 2 days enhances neurite outgrowth and βIII-tubulin and neuronal nuclei (NeuN) expression levels and increases the intracellular Ca²⁺ during stimulation. The effect of short time ES on stem cell neural differentiation was also confirmed in human MSCs (hMSCs). Greeshma et al. [41] used polyaniline (PANI) to establish conductivity in polymeric substrates and provided a short time DC electric filed stimulation (100 mV/cm, 10 min every day for 10 days). Intermittent ES reportedly improves neural-like differentiation of hMSCs with elongated filopodia and increased expression of nestin and βIII-tubulin [41]. Long-time ES can also enhance stem neural differentiation and maturation. Dong et al. treat NSCs with ES for 3 days at 150 mV/mm, resulting in increased achaete-scute homolog (Ascl1) expression that was further proven to regulate phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt) pathway in NSCs [42]. In addition, hMSCs also showed increased levels of SOX2, nestin, βIII-tubulin expression, and Ca²⁺ oscillation after nine days of continuous exposure to 8 mV/mm ES for 20 h/day [43]. Taken together, these studies confirm the ES can induce cell orientation and migration, and enhance the differentiation of stem cells into neural cell lineages. Since the time duration of ES and the amplitude of DC varied among studies, it is difficult to directly compare the DC-mediated effects on stem cell differentiation reported in them. Besides, none of these studies investigated the effect of ES on neural gene expression profiles throughout the whole process. ES may have variable impacts at different differentiation stages, which warrants further investigation.

Exogenous DC stimulation has also been reported to exert a positive effect on nerve function recovery in vivo. Yamada et al. demonstrated the potential of ESC to differentiate into mature neurons after injection into the injured spinal cords of adult mice [36]. ES could further improve the function recovery, and 7 days of ES (10 Hz, 0.5–1.0 V), which was performed for 4 h/day, may improve the function of the injured spinal cord in rats [44]. Some data showed that DC stimulation can improve motor function after a stroke [45, 46]; in particular, the improvement is greater in chronic stroke patients [47]. The improvements showed a positive relationship with current and charge density when transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS) was applied [48]. Up to 4 mA of tDCS was considered safe and tolerable for stroke patients [49]. In addition, bilateral cerebellar tDCS was also reported to improve balance in patients with Parkinson’s disease [50].

2.2. Effect of Alternating Current on Stem Cell Neural Differentiation

AC is the flow of charge that changes direction periodically, and its magnitude reverses along with the current. In vitro AC systems use capacitively coupled or inductively coupled designs. The applications of AC stimulation in neural differentiation are summarized in Table 3. In contrast to DC, AC may not have effect on NSC migration, alignment with ES [51]. This may be due to the bidirectional electric field provided by AC. However, Matos et al. found that AC stimulation can improve the viability and neural differentiation of NSCs. The best frequency for mouse NSC viability was 1 Hz, and frequency lower than 1 Hz can increase the ratio of neurons to astrocytes [52]. Furthermore, using a frequency higher than 1–50 Hz, 0.001 kV/cm, AC ES delayed neural differentiation of progenitor cells into astrocytes [53]. According to these studies, a wide range of the frequencies of ES can control the differentiation of stem cells into specific sublineages, which depend on the cell types and culture conditions. Apart from in vitro AC stimulation, in vivo AC devices were also designed. Repetitive transorbital AC stimulation was used to treat mice with optic nerve injury. After treatment, many large neurons survived with moderate dendritic shrinkage [54].

2.3. Effect of Pulsed Current on Stem Cell Neural Differentiation

Pulsed current can be pulsed DC or AC, monophasic or biphasic. Monophasic pulsed current is unidirectional whereas biphasic pulsed current refers to two pulses of current in different directions within one pulse duration or bidirectional. Biphasic current is the most versatile waveform for ES owing to the improved duration, amplitude, and frequency of a pulse. It has been indicated that the parameters of electrical stimulation, including frequency, electrical strength, and duration, should be optimized to improve the effect of ES in regulating stem cell neural differentiation.

Pulsed current has shown remarkable effects on stem cell proliferation, neural differentiation, and axonal outgrowth (Table 4). Similar to effect of DC on stem cell viability, pulsed ES can improve NSC survival and prevent growth factor-induced cell apoptosis [55]. In addition, the effect of pulsed ES on stem cell proliferation is cell type specific. Petrella et al. [38] compared the effects of picosecond pulsed electric field on NSCs and MSCs. Pulsed ES has no influence on MSC proliferation but improves NSC proliferation and astrocyte-specific differentiation by upregulating GFAP after 24 h under 40 kV/cm. Chang KA et al. used [56] used indium tin oxide (ITO) glasses to generate a biphasic electrical stimulator chip. They found that biphasic ES (200 μs pulse duration, 100 Hz) increased not only NSC proliferation but also cell differentiation into NeuN, MAP2, and βIII -tubulin positive neurons. Tandon et al. used a microarray with ITO electrodes to generate monophasic square-wave pulses (5 V, 1 ms duration per 100 ms) and the pulsed ES facilitated mouse retinal progenitor cell differentiation into mature neurons, thereby increasing βIII-tubulin expression and Ca² influxes [57].

Pulsed ES also exerts an effect on the differentiation of stem cells into subtypes of neural cells other than neurons. Du et al. reported that 20 Hz of 100 μs pulsed ES enhanced human neural crest stem cell differentiation into Schwann cells and promoted nerve regeneration after cell transplantation [58]. Chang et al. reported that pulsed DC electric fields induce cortical NSCs to simultaneously differentiate into neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes [59]. In contrast, when NSCs growing on poly (L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)/graphene oxide (GO) conductive composite membranes were stimulated with 500 Hz pulsed current for 1 h every day for 3 days, the NSCs showed differentiation tendency towards neurons comparing to astrocytes [60]. Guo et al. reported that MSCs under pulsed ES (300 V, 30 μA, 0.84 Hz) for 21 days differentiated into neurons and astrocyte-like cells [61]. Furthermore, the effect of pulsed ES was also confirmed in vivo. An implanted pulse generator with real-time triggering capabilities restored walking in patients with lower limb paralysis after spinal cord injury [62]. Taken together, these results indicate that pulsed ES play a critical role in stem cell neural differentiation, as it can increase the length and branching of neurites and regulate differentiation into neural subtypes, depending on stem cell type and pulsed ES formats.

3. Effect of Electrical Stimulation through Conductive Material on Neural Differentiation

Restoring nerve function is a great challenge in nerve tissue regeneration. Numerous biomaterials and nanocomponents fulfil the need for achieving the functional differentiation of transplanted stem cells in tissue engineering by mimicking the properties of the microenvironment. Here, we summarize and discuss the electroconductive materials used in nerve tissue regeneration (Table 5). Electroconductive materials have been widely investigated in tissue engineering owing to their high electrical conductivity and ability to generate topographical 2D and 3D structures. Devices can be designed with 2D and 3D chambers for in vitro studies.

3.1. Effect of Electrical Stimulation through 2D Conductive Material on Stem Cell Neural Differentiation

Owing to the intrinsic electrical properties of neural cells and positive response under ES, there has been a lot of interest in conductive materials for application in neural tissue engineering and regeneration. ES currents can be traditionally delivered through salt bridges submerged inculture media. Many biocompatible materials such as carbon, platinum, gold, titanium, and silver are commonly used as electrodes. To date, metal nanomaterials have been widely used in various tissue engineering studies. A growing number of studies have developed 2D biomaterial substrates or 3D scaffolds using metal deposits in stem cell-based tissue regeneration. Compared to salt bridges with an electrode system, a conductive polymer material provides direct ES through an interface. Yang et al. deposited a thin layer (150–300 nm groove/ridge) of titanium (Ti) onto nanopatterned polyurethane-acrylate substrate surfaces [63]. Their data indicated that nanotopography synergistically upregulated the expression of neural markers (Tuj1, NeuN, MAP2) and improved the electrophysiological properties and functional maturation of neurons differentiated from human NSCs.

With the rapid development of biomaterials, conductive polymer materials, including polypyrrole (PPy) [64, 65], PANI [66], graphene [67], and carbon nanotubes [68–70], have been explored as substrates with acceptable biocompatibility with neural cells. The conductive polymers can locally deliver electrical stimulus to stem cells and even be conjugated with peptides to enhance stem cell proliferation and differentiation. Chuan et al. reported that NSCs planted on a conductive PLGA/GO composite membrane, showed increased proliferation, neuronal differentiation, and neurite elongation [60]. Peptide-coated PPy neural probes implanted in guinea pig brain promoted the neuron attachment [71]. Ostrakhovitch et al. found that poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) : polyethylene glycol (PEG), ITO, and fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO) glass slides can facilitate the neural differentiation of mouse NSE and P19 pluripotent embryonal carcinoma cells and greatly increase the expression of βIII-tubulin [72]. However, Stewart et al. showed that ES in PPy-containing dopant dodecylbenzenesulfonate (DBS) can predominantly induce the differentiation of NSCs into neurons and less likely into glial cells [65]. It remains unclear whether ES can manipulate the differentiation of stem cells into specific subtypes of neurons, including glutamatergic or dopaminergic neurons.

3.2. Effect of Electrical Stimulation through 3D Conductive Material on Stem Cell Neural Differentiation

Compared to 2D cell monolayers, stem cells cultured in a 3D model showed improved cell behavior [73–75]. Numerous materials such as electroconductive hydrogels [76], carbon nanotubes [69, 77], and other nanocomponents [78] have been utilized in developing 3D stem cell neuronal differentiation model [79]. Figure 2 shows the structures of conductive materials used for neural tissue engineering. Heo et al. reported that 3D cultured adipose-derived stem cells formed distinct cell spheres in poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) : polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT : PSS) microwells and showed higher neuronal gene expression levels with ES [80]. Rahmani et al. [81] used silk fibroin and reduced GO to generate a 3D conductive nanofibrous scaffold that delivered pulsed current (2 : 115 V/m, 0.1 and 1 : 115 V/m, 100 Hz). Their conductive fibrous scaffold promoted conjunctiva MSCs to differentiate into neural cells by upregulating neural genes, such as MAP2, βIII-tubulin, and NSE. Carbon nanomaterials, such as graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) and multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), also demonstrated the ability to enhance cell proliferation and neurite outgrowth and differentiation [82–84].

Figure 2 

Schematic diagram of structures of conductive materials used for neural tissue engineering.

3D printing is an emerging manufacturing technology with great potential in tissue engineering as it provides a powerful fabrication method for generating accurate and complex patterns and architectures with biochemicals and cells. Particularly, 3D printed platforms are being used for neural regeneration [85–87]. Hydrogels, biodegradable polymers, and novel biomaterials have been used in 3D printing. To date, various 3D printed scaffolds made of different materials have demonstrated their high potential in neural tissue engineering and regeneration [77, 88, 89]. For example, an aqueous dispersion mixture of cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (CNT) was used as conductive ink to print guidelines for culturing neural cells (SH-SY5Y) [90]. An amine functionalized MWCNT and polyethylene glycol dipropionate (PEGDA) polymer composite complex was fabricated into a tunable porous neural scaffold that could promote neural stem cell proliferation and neuronal differentiation via a stereolithography 3D printer [77]. Petrella et al. used a 3D printer anchored with a picosecond pulse electric field electrode to print MSCs and NSCs [38]. Their data indicated that 40 kV/cm at 1800 pulses can promote astrocyte specific differentiation but not alter differentiation of MSCs. Aggas et al. also printed 3D hybrid soft conductive hydrogel to support PC12 (a rat pheochromocytoma cell line) attachment [91]. In addition, stem cells and neurites have been shown to grow and extend in the direction of aligned fibers, respectively [92, 93]. Differentiated neural cells have been reported to present higher expression levels of neuronal differentiation markers and better properties than random fibers [94–96]. In summary, 3D printed conductive nanomaterials offer great advantages for stem cell neural differentiation owing to better morphological control, in addition to biochemical cues.

4. Potential Mechanism of Electrical Stimulation on Neural Differentiation

In addition to neurotrophic factors, physical stimulation such as ES can also promote neural differentiation. ES can promote stem cell proliferation [24], migration [2], and neuronal differentiation. It regulates the cell differentiation via a complex mechanism, including changes in the extracellular matrix, cell surface receptor activation, microfilament reorganization, Ca²⁺ dynamics, and many intracellular signaling pathways. Here, we summarize the potential underlying mechanisms (Figure 3).

Figure 3 

Potential mechanism of electrical stimulation on neural differentiation.

The mechanism of electrical current guided migration of neurites and cells varies among cell types. Several studies have demonstrated that the PI3K/Akt and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathways are involved in regulating NSC migration under ES [42, 102–104]. Dong et al. demonstrated that the expression of Ascl1 is required for ES-induced neuronal differentiation of NSCs and that their expression is positively related to the strength of the electric field, regulated by ES; this triggers the activation of the PI3K/Akt pathway [42]. In contrast, Rajnicek et al. found that neuronal growth cones migrating toward the cathode were regulated by cell division cycle 42 (Cdc42), Rac, and Rho and not by the PI3K and MAPK/ERK signaling pathways, which were found in the electric field guidance of nonneuronal cells [105]. Electric field-guided directional migration in iPSCs and neurons depends on Rho-kinase signaling [37]. Feng et al. found that a small DC ES (16 mV/mm) was effective in guiding the migration of human ESC-derived NSCs toward the cathode and that this guidance was not exerted through the Rho/Rho-associated protein kinase or C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 signaling pathway [35]. Wang et al. have found that the brain-derived neurotrophic factor PI3K/Akt signaling pathway activated by BES can protect against growth factor-deprived NSC apoptosis [55].

Moreover, in an in vivo test on rats, ES increased the expression and phosphorylation of ERK1/2 (pERK1/2), and pERK1/2 upregulated the expression of the antiapoptotic protein B-cell lymphoma-2, which finally promoted neuronal cell survival. Furthermore, ES upregulated the expression of p38, which inhibited RhoA-induced neurite outgrowth and neuronal differentiation. These two pathways can lead to the neuronal regeneration and recovery of the electrophysiological function of an injured spinal cord [44]. Chang et al. demonstrated that the combination of nerve growth factor and ES promote neurite outgrowth by increasing the activity of protein kinase C and pERK1/2 [106].

Ca²⁺ is an important signaling ion involved in various biological activities. Studies have shown that Ca²⁺ influx is important for stem cell fate determination. ES can enhance neural growth toward neurotrophic growth factors by increasing cytoplasmic Ca²⁺ and cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) [107]. Masahisa et al. found that Ca²⁺ contribute to ES and enhance the neuronal differentiation of ESCs [36]. As a whole, the fundamental mechanism of ES-promoting stem cell neural differentiation is quite complicated, and further research is imperative to completely understand and improve the efficiency of neural regeneration. Coupled with newly developed tools, such as single-cell sequencing and gene editing, these technologies may help identify the ES-induced genes that are crucial for regulating stem cell neural differentiation.

5. Conclusions

The use of stem cell-derived neural cells is emerging as an effective therapeutic strategy. Stem cells have been used for transplantation to treat nerve diseases with proven safety and efficacy. For example, MSCs have been proven to be safe and effective in treating multiple sclerosis and ischemic stroke [108, 109]. Many factors are associated with the efficacy of stem cell therapy and regenerative medicine in nerve diseases. The most important of them is finding effective methods to induce neural differentiation.

Stem cell differentiation is a complicated process that is regulated by various external and internal factors. ES is likely involved in neurogenesis. Compared to the use of chemically or biologically induced differentiation, ES has the advantage of precisely controlling the stimulation through on/off switching and the selective stimulation region as the cells exposed to ES can be easily selected according to the placement of needle electrodes or conductive materials. In addition, ES can be accurately manipulated in a time-controlled manner through an external power supply. However, there are some limitations of ES in the regulation of the neural differentiation of stem cells. Various types of currents, such as DC, AC, and pulsed current, are used in ES; thus, the effects of ES on stem cell differentiation are diverse, depending on the cell types and ES conditions. As such, directly comparing studies that use different experimental parameters in many aspects is not possible. Importantly, the timing of ES is an essential factor which can strongly influence stem cell differentiation. Nevertheless, current platforms preclude high-throughput screening to simultaneously study the complicated parameters. In addition, although ES is generally effective, it is not as potent as growth factors. This problem can be solved by combining electrical and biochemical stimulation which can potentially promote the differentiation of stem cells in a more robust and controlled manner. Many studies have proved that combined therapy is a strong rational approach for tissue engineering and nerve disease treatment [110–113]. With the development of materials, micropatterned conductive materials can not only provide ES but also guide cell and neurites orientation through topographies. Some conductive materials, especially nanomaterials, can generate complexed 3D structures to further facilitate scaffold-based cellular transplants. Biomaterial 3D scaffold is one of the most promising approaches for in vivo applications, as it not only can provide a biophysical microenvironment but is also easily compatible with various stimulation cues.

At present, except for orthodox treatment, ES has been considered as a useful noninvasive, interventional method in the clinic. Regardless of the types of waveform of the ES, their effects on neural disease in animal models and human patients have been demonstrated. However, there are many factors that can impact the efficiency of ES-based therapy, such as the source of stem cells, parameters of electric, onset timing and duration of ES, and the stimulation interface materials. A fundamental understanding of the most crucial driving mechanism underlying neural differentiation upon ES will greatly improve the experimental reproducibility and clinical translation. We believe that the combination of new conductive materials and stem cells will contribute to the application of stem cell-based therapy for nerve diseases treatment.

Data Availability

All data included in this study appear in the submitted article.

Conflicts of Interest

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

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. U20A20390, 11827803, and 11302020).

References

1. L. Yao, A. Pandit, S. Yao, and C. D. McCaig, “Electric field-guided neuron migration: a novel approach in neurogenesis,” Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 143–153, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
2. M. Imaninezhad, K. Pemberton, F. Xu, K. Kalinowski, R. Bera, and S. P. Zustiak, “Directed and enhanced neurite outgrowth following exogenous electrical stimulation on carbon nanotube-hydrogel composites,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 15, no. 5, article 056034, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
3. X. Yuan, D. E. Arkonac, P.-h. G. Chao, and G. Vunjak-Novakovic, “Electrical stimulation enhances cell migration and integrative repair in the meniscus,” Scientific Reports, vol. 4, no. 1, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
4. L. Yao, C. D. McCaig, and M. Zhao, “Electrical signals polarize neuronal organelles, direct neuron migration, and orient cell division,” Hippocampus, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 855–868, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
5. R. Piacentini, C. Ripoli, D. Mezzogori, G. B. Azzena, and C. Grassi, “Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields promote in vitro neurogenesis via upregulation of Ca(v)1-channel activity,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 215, no. 1, pp. 129–139, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
6. X. Qiu, Y. Liu, X. Xiao, J. He, H. Zhang, and Y. Li, “In VitroInduction of human embryonic stem cells into the midbrain dopaminergic neurons and transplantation in cynomolgus monkey,” Cellular Reprogramming, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 285–295, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
7. J.‐. P. Wang, Y.‐. T. Liao, S.‐. H. Wu et al., “Mesenchymal stem cells from a hypoxic culture improve nerve regeneration,” Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1804–1814, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
8. G. Tincer, V. Mashkaryan, P. Bhattarai, and C. Kizil, “Neural stem/progenitor cells in Alzheimer's disease,” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 23–35, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
9. N. Amin, X. Tan, Q. Ren et al., “Recent advances of induced pluripotent stem cells application in neurodegenerative diseases,” Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, vol. 95, article 109674, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
10. H.-P. Huang, W. Chiang, L. Stone, C.-K. Kang, C.-Y. Chuang, and H.-C. Kuo, “Using human Pompe disease-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural cells to identify compounds with therapeutic potential,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 28, no. 23, pp. 3880–3894, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
11. G. Rushing and R. A. Ihrie, “Neural stem cell heterogeneity through time and space in the ventricular-subventricular zone,” Frontiers in Biology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 261–284, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
12. X.-M. Zhao, X.-Y. He, J. Liu et al., “Neural stem cell transplantation improves locomotor function in spinal cord transection rats associated with nerve regeneration and IGF-1 R expression,” Cell Transplantation, vol. 28, no. 9-10, pp. 1197–1211, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
13. R. Gonzalez, M. H. Hamblin, and J.-P. Lee, “Neural stem cell transplantation and CNS diseases,” CNS & Neurological Disorders - Drug Targets, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 881–886, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
14. S. Kim, K.-A. Chang, J. A. Kim et al., “The preventive and therapeutic effects of intravenous human adipose-derived stem cells in Alzheimer's disease mice,” PLoS One, vol. 7, no. 9, article e45757, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
15. M. R. McCrary, K. Jesson, Z. Z. Wei et al., “Cortical transplantation of brain-mimetic glycosaminoglycan scaffolds and neural progenitor cells promotes vascular regeneration and functional recovery after ischemic stroke in mice,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 9, no. 5, article 1900285, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
16. M. Chau, T. C. Deveau, M. Song et al., “Transplantation of iPS cell-derived neural progenitors overexpressing SDF-1α increases regeneration and functional recovery after ischemic stroke,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 57, pp. 97537–97553, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
17. C. Ramotowski, X. Qu, and L. G. Villa‐Diaz, “Progress in the use of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural cells for traumatic spinal cord injuries in animal populations: meta-analysis and review,” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 681–693, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
18. Z. Liu, Y. Jiang, X. Li, and Z. Hu, “Embryonic stem cell-derived peripheral auditory neurons form neural connections with mouse central auditory neurons in vitro via the α2δ1 receptor,” Stem Cell Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 157–170, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
19. S. E. Marsh and M. Blurton-Jones, “Neural stem cell therapy for neurodegenerative disorders: the role of neurotrophic support,” Neurochemistry International, vol. 106, pp. 94–100, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
20. B.-Y. Hu, J. P. Weick, J. Yu et al., “Neural differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells follows developmental principles but with variable potency,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 4335–4340, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
21. H.-H. Ryu, J.-H. Lim, Y.-E. Byeon et al., “Functional recovery and neural differentiation after transplantation of allogenic adipose-derived stem cells in a canine model of acute spinal cord injury,” Journal of Veterinary Science, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 273–284, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
22. S. K. Kang, D. H. Lee, Y. C. Bae, H. K. Kim, S. Y. Baik, and J. S. Jung, “Improvement of neurological deficits by intracerebral transplantation of human adipose tissue-derived stromal cells after cerebral ischemia in rats,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 183, no. 2, pp. 355–366, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
23. G. K. Steinberg, D. Kondziolka, L. R. Wechsler et al., “Clinical outcomes of transplanted modified bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in stroke: a phase 1/2a study,” Stroke, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1817–1824, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
24. B. Song, M. Zhao, J. V. Forrester, and C. D. McCaig, “Electrical cues regulate the orientation and frequency of cell division and the rate of wound healing in vivo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 99, no. 21, pp. 13577–13582, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
25. A. N. Koppes, A. M. Seggio, and D. M. Thompson, “Neurite outgrowth is significantly increased by the simultaneous presentation of Schwann cells and moderate exogenous electric fields,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 8, no. 4, article 046023, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
26. M. Zhao, B. Song, J. Pu et al., “Electrical signals control wound healing through phosphatidylinositol-3-OH kinase-γ and PTEN,” Nature, vol. 442, no. 7101, pp. 457–460, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
27. F. Pires, Q. Ferreira, C. A. V. Rodrigues, J. Morgado, and F. C. Ferreira, “Neural stem cell differentiation by electrical stimulation using a cross- linked PEDOT substrate: Expanding the use of biocompatible conjugated conductive polymers for neural tissue engineering,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects, vol. 1850, no. 6, pp. 1158–1168, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
28. R. J. Cork, M. E. McGinnis, J. Tsai, and K. R. Robinson, “The growth of PC12 neurites is biased towards the anode of an applied electrical field,” Journal of Neurobiology, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1509–1516, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
29. D. Wu, X. Ma, and F. Lin, “DC electric fields direct breast cancer cell migration, induce EGFR polarization, and increase the intracellular level of calcium ions,” Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1115–1125. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
30. J.-D. Yang, C.-D. Liao, S.-W. Huang et al., “Effectiveness of electrical stimulation therapy in improving arm function after stroke: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1286–1297, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
31. T. Gordon, “Electrical stimulation to enhance axon regeneration after peripheral nerve injuries in animal models and humans,” Neurotherapeutics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 295–310, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
32. N. Kapadia, B. Moineau, and M. R. Popovic, “Functional electrical stimulation therapy for retraining reaching and grasping after spinal cord injury and stroke,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 14, p. 718, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
33. J. Morimoto, T. Yasuhara, M. Kameda et al., “Electrical stimulation enhances migratory ability of transplanted bone marrow stromal cells in a rodent ischemic stroke model,” Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 57–68, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
34. J.-F. Feng, J. Liu, L. Zhang et al., “Electrical guidance of human stem cells in the rat brain,” Stem Cell Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 177–189, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
35. J.-F. Feng, J. Liu, X.-Z. Zhang et al., “Guided migration of neural stem cells derived from human embryonic stem cells by an electric field,” Stem Cells, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 349–355, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
36. M. Yamada, K. Tanemura, S. Okada et al., “Electrical stimulation modulates fate determination of differentiating embryonic stem cells,” Stem Cells, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 562–570, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
37. J. Zhang, M. Calafiore, Q. Zeng et al., “Electrically guiding migration of human induced pluripotent stem cells,” Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 987–996, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
38. R. A. Petrella, P. A. Mollica, M. Zamponi et al., “3D bioprinter applied picosecond pulsed electric fields for targeted manipulation of proliferation and lineage specific gene expression in neural stem cells,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 15, no. 5, article 056021, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
39. H. Zhao, A. Steiger, M. Nohner, and H. Ye, “Specific intensity direct current (DC) electric field improves neural stem cell migration and enhances differentiation towards βIII-Tubulin+ neurons,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 6, article e0129625, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
40. L. J. Kobelt, A. E. Wilkinson, A. M. McCormick, R. K. Willits, and N. D. Leipzig, “Short duration electrical stimulation to enhance neurite outgrowth and maturation of adult neural stem progenitor cells,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2164–2176, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
41. G. Thrivikraman, G. Madras, and B. Basu, “Intermittent electrical stimuli for guidance of human mesenchymal stem cell lineage commitment towards neural-like cells on electroconductive substrates,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, no. 24, pp. 6219–6235, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
42. Z.-y. Dong, Z. Pei, Y.-l. Wang, Z. Li, A. Khan, and X.-t. Meng, “Ascl1 regulates electric field-induced neuronal differentiation through PI3K/Akt pathway,” Neuroscience, vol. 404, pp. 141–152, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
43. S. Naskar, V. Kumaran, Y. S. Markandeya, B. Mehta, and B. Basu, “Neurogenesis-on-chip: electric field modulated transdifferentiation of human mesenchymal stem cell and mouse muscle precursor cell coculture,” Biomaterials, vol. 226, article 119522, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
44. M. Y. Lee, M. C. Joo, C. H. Jang et al., “Effect of electrical stimulation on neural regeneration via the p38-RhoA and ERK1/2-Bcl-2 pathways in spinal cord-injured rats,” Neural Regeneration Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 340–346, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
45. R. Lindenberg, V. Renga, L. L. Zhu, D. Nair, and G. Schlaug, “Bihemispheric brain stimulation facilitates motor recovery in chronic stroke patients,” Neurology, vol. 75, no. 24, pp. 2176–2184, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
46. B. Elsner, G. Kwakkel, J. Kugler, and J. Mehrholz, “Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving capacity in activities and arm function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 14, no. 1, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
47. D. C. Alisar, S. Ozen, and S. Sozay, “Effects of Bihemispheric Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Upper Extremity Function in Stroke Patients: A randomized Double-Blind Sham- Controlled Study,” Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, vol. 29, no. 1, article 104454, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
48. P. Y. Chhatbar, V. Ramakrishnan, S. Kautz, M. S. George, R. J. Adams, and W. Feng, “Transcranial direct current stimulation post-stroke upper extremity motor recovery studies exhibit a dose-response relationship,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 16–26, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
49. P. Y. Chhatbar, R. Chen, R. Deardorff et al., “Safety and tolerability of transcranial direct current stimulation to stroke patients - a phase I current escalation study,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 553–559, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
50. C. D. Workman, A. C. Fietsam, E. Y. Uc, and T. Rudroff, “Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation in people with Parkinson's disease: a pilot study,” Brain Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 96, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
51. C. A. Ariza, A. T. Fleury, C. J. Tormos et al., “The influence of electric fields on hippocampal neural progenitor cells,” Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 585–600, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
52. M. A. Matos and M. T. Cicerone, “Alternating current electric field effects on neural stem cell viability and differentiation,” Biotechnology Progress, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 664–670, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
53. J.-H. Lim, S. D. McCullen, J. A. Piedrahita, E. G. Loboa, and N. J. Olby, “Alternating current electric fields of varying frequencies: effects on proliferation and differentiation of porcine neural progenitor cells,” Cellular Reprogramming, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 405–412, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
54. P. Henrich-Noack, E. G. Sergeeva, T. Eber et al., “Electrical brain stimulation induces dendritic stripping but improves survival of silent neurons after optic nerve damage,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 627, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
55. M. Wang, P. Li, M. Liu, W. Song, Q. Wu, and Y. Fan, “Potential protective effect of biphasic electrical stimulation against growth factor-deprived apoptosis on olfactory bulb neural progenitor cells through the brain-derived neurotrophic factor-phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase/Akt pathway,” Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 238, no. 8, pp. 951–959, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
56. K.-A. Chang, J. W. Kim, J. A. Kim et al., “Biphasic electrical currents stimulation promotes both proliferation and differentiation of fetal neural stem cells,” PLoS One, vol. 6, no. 4, article e18738, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
57. N. Tandon, E. Cimetta, A. Taubman et al., “Biomimetic electrical stimulation platform for neural differentiation of retinal progenitor cells,” in 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 5666–5669, Osaka, Japan, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
58. J. Du, G. Zhen, H. Chen et al., “Optimal electrical stimulation boosts stem cell therapy in nerve regeneration,” Biomaterials, vol. 181, pp. 347–359, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
59. H.-F. Chang, Y.-S. Lee, T. K. Tang, and J.-Y. Cheng, “Pulsed DC electric field-induced differentiation of cortical neural precursor cells,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 6, article e0158133, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
60. C. Fu, S. Pan, Y. Ma, W. Kong, Z. Qi, and X. Yang, “Effect of electrical stimulation combined with graphene-oxide-based membranes on neural stem cell proliferation and differentiation,” Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1867–1876, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
61. W. Guo, X. Zhang, X. Yu et al., “Self-powered electrical stimulation for enhancing neural differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells on graphene-poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) hybrid microfibers,” ACS Nano, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 5086–5095, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
62. F. B. Wagner, J.-B. Mignardot, C. G. Le Goff-Mignardot et al., “Targeted neurotechnology restores walking in humans with spinal cord injury,” Nature, vol. 563, no. 7729, pp. 65–71, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
63. K. Yang, S. J. Yu, J. S. Lee et al., “Electroconductive nanoscale topography for enhanced neuronal differentiation and electrophysiological maturation of human neural stem cells,” Nanoscale, vol. 9, no. 47, pp. 18737–18752, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
64. A. Kotwal and C. E. Schmidt, “Electrical stimulation alters protein adsorption and nerve cell interactions with electrically conducting biomaterials,” Biomaterials, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1055–1064, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
65. E. Stewart, N. R. Kobayashi, M. J. Higgins et al., “Electrical stimulation using conductive polymer polypyrrole promotes differentiation of human neural stem cells: a biocompatible platform for translational neural tissue engineering,” Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 385–393, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
66. T. H. Qazi, R. Rai, and A. R. Boccaccini, “Tissue engineering of electrically responsive tissues using polyaniline based polymers: a review,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, no. 33, pp. 9068–9086, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
67. N. Li, Q. Zhang, S. Gao et al., “Three-dimensional graphene foam as a biocompatible and conductive scaffold for neural stem cells,” Scientific Reports, vol. 3, no. 1, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
68. A. Fabbro, A. Villari, J. Laishram et al., “Spinal cord explants use carbon nanotube interfaces to enhance neurite outgrowth and to fortify synaptic inputs,” ACS Nano, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 2041–2055, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
69. V. Lovat, D. Pantarotto, L. Lagostena et al., “Carbon nanotube substrates boost neuronal electrical signaling,” Nano Letters, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1107–1110, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
70. A. A. John, A. P. Subramanian, M. V. Vellayappan, A. Balaji, H. Mohandas, and S. K. Jaganathan, “Carbon nanotubes and graphene as emerging candidates in neuroregeneration and neurodrug delivery,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 10, pp. 4267–4277, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
71. X. Cui, J. Wiler, M. Dzaman, R. A. Altschuler, and D. C. Martin, “In vivo studies of polypyrrole/peptide coated neural probes,” Biomaterials, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 777–787, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
72. E. A. Ostrakhovitch, J. C. Byers, K. D. O’Neil, and O. A. Semenikhin, “Directed differentiation of embryonic P19 cells and neural stem cells into neural lineage on conducting PEDOT-PEG and ITO glass substrates,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 528, no. 1, pp. 21–31, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
73. A. R. Murphy, J. M. Haynes, A. L. Laslett, N. R. Cameron, and C. M. O'Brien, “Three-dimensional differentiation of human pluripotent stem cell-derived neural precursor cells using tailored porous polymer scaffolds,” Acta Biomater, vol. 101, pp. 102–116, 2020. View at: Google Scholar
74. Y. Huang, H. Deng, Y. Fan et al., “Conductive nanostructured Si biomaterials enhance osteogeneration through electrical stimulation,” Materials Science and Engineering: C, vol. 103, article 109748, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
75. X. Ding, Y. Huang, X. Li et al., “Three-dimensional silk fibroin scaffolds incorporated with graphene for bone regeneration,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 515–523, 2021. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
76. L. Ghasemi-Mobarakeh, M. P. Prabhakaran, M. Morshed et al., “Application of conductive polymers, scaffolds and electrical stimulation for nerve tissue engineering,” Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. e17–e35, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
77. S.-J. Lee, W. Zhu, M. Nowicki et al., “3D printing nano conductive multi-walled carbon nanotube scaffolds for nerve regeneration,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, article 016018, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
78. C. Chen, T. Zhang, Q. Zhang et al., “Three-dimensional BC/PEDOT composite nanofibers with high performance for electrode-cell interface,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 7, no. 51, pp. 28244–28253, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
79. M. Hronik-Tupaj and D. L. Kaplan, “A review of the responses of two- and three-dimensional engineered tissues to electric fields,” Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 167–180, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
80. D. N. Heo, N. Acquah, J. Kim, S.-J. Lee, N. J. Castro, and L. G. Zhang, “Directly induced neural differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells using three-dimensional culture system of conductive microwell with electrical stimulation,” Tissue Engineering Part A, vol. 24, no. 7-8, pp. 537–545, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
81. A. Rahmani, S. Nadri, H. S. Kazemi, Y. Mortazavi, and M. Sojoodi, “Conductive electrospun scaffolds with electrical stimulation for neural differentiation of conjunctiva mesenchymal stem cells,” Artificial Organs, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 780–790, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
82. P. Gupta, A. Agrawal, K. Murali et al., “Differential neural cell adhesion and neurite outgrowth on carbon nanotube and graphene reinforced polymeric scaffolds,” Materials Science and Engineering: C, vol. 97, pp. 539–551, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
83. Q. Wang, Y.-H. Li, W.-J. Jiang et al., “Graphene-based nanomaterials: potential tools for neurorepair,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 56–61, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
84. Y. S. Chen and G. H. Hsiue, “Directing neural differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells by carboxylated multiwalled carbon nanotubes,” Biomaterials, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 4936–4944, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
85. D. Joung, N. S. Lavoie, S. Z. Guo, S. H. Park, A. M. Parr, and M. C. McAlpine, “3D printed neural regeneration devices,” Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 30, no. 1, article 1906237, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
86. J. Koffler, W. Zhu, X. Qu et al., “Biomimetic 3D-printed scaffolds for spinal cord injury repair,” Nature Medicine, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 263–269, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
87. T. Bedir, S. Ulag, C. B. Ustundag, and O. Gunduz, “3D bioprinting applications in neural tissue engineering for spinal cord injury repair,” Materials Science & Engineering. C, Materials for Biological Applications, vol. 110, article 110741, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
88. F. Y. Hsieh, H. H. Lin, and S. H. Hsu, “3D bioprinting of neural stem cell-laden thermoresponsive biodegradable polyurethane hydrogel and potential in central nervous system repair,” Biomaterials, vol. 71, pp. 48–57, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
89. D. Joung, V. Truong, C. C. Neitzke et al., “3D printed stem-cell derived neural progenitors generate spinal cord scaffolds,” Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 28, no. 39, p. 39, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
90. V. Kuzmenko, E. Karabulut, E. Pernevik, P. Enoksson, and P. Gatenholm, “Tailor-made conductive inks from cellulose nanofibrils for 3D printing of neural guidelines,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 189, pp. 22–30, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
91. J. Aggas, S. Abasi, B. Smith, M. Zimmerman, M. Deprest, and A. Guiseppi-Elie, “Microfabricated and 3-D printed soft bioelectronic constructs from PAn-PAAMPSA-containing hydrogels,” Bioengineering (Basel), vol. 5, no. 4, p. 87, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
92. L. E. Sperling, K. P. Reis, L. G. Pozzobon, C. S. Girardi, and P. Pranke, “Influence of random and oriented electrospun fibrous poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) scaffolds on neural differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 1333–1345, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
93. D. Yucel, G. T. Kose, and V. Hasirci, “Tissue engineered, guided nerve tube consisting of aligned neural stem cells and astrocytes,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 3584–3591, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
94. E. A. Silantyeva, W. Nasir, J. Carpenter, O. Manahan, M. L. Becker, and R. K. Willits, “Accelerated neural differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells on aligned GYIGSR-functionalized nanofibers,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 75, pp. 129–139, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
95. Z. Liu and Z. Hu, “Aligned contiguous microfiber platform enhances neural differentiation of embryonic stem cells,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 6087, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
96. S. H. Lim, X. Y. Liu, H. Song, K. J. Yarema, and H. Q. Mao, “The effect of nanofiber-guided cell alignment on the preferential differentiation of neural stem cells,” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 34, pp. 9031–9039, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
97. P. M. George, T. M. Bliss, T. Hua et al., “Electrical preconditioning of stem cells with a conductive polymer scaffold enhances stroke recovery,” Biomaterials, vol. 142, pp. 31–40, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
98. L. Ghasemi-Mobarakeh, M. P. Prabhakaran, M. Morshed, M. H. Nasr-Esfahani, and S. Ramakrishna, “Electrical stimulation of nerve cells using conductive nanofibrous scaffolds for nerve tissue engineering,” Tissue Engineering. Part A, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 3605–3619, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
99. A. T. Nguyen, S. Mattiassi, M. Loeblein et al., “Human Rett-derived neuronal progenitor cells in 3D graphene scaffold as an in vitro platform to study the effect of electrical stimulation on neuronal differentiation,” Biomedical Materials, vol. 13, no. 3, article 034111, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
100. T. Sudwilai, J. J. Ng, C. Boonkrai, N. Israsena, S. Chuangchote, and P. Supaphol, “Polypyrrole-coated electrospun poly(lactic acid) fibrous scaffold: effects of coating on electrical conductivity and neural cell growth,” Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1240–1252, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
101. M. D. Tang-Schomer, “3D axon growth by exogenous electrical stimulus and soluble factors,” Brain Research, vol. 1678, pp. 288–296, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
102. X. Meng, M. Arocena, J. Penninger, F. H. Gage, M. Zhao, and B. Song, “PI3K mediated electrotaxis of embryonic and adult neural progenitor cells in the presence of growth factors,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 227, no. 1, pp. 210–217, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
103. C. Yang, L. Wang, W. Weng et al., “Steered migration and changed morphology of human astrocytes by an applied electric field,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 374, no. 2, pp. 282–289, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
104. M. Arocena, M. Zhao, J. M. Collinson, and B. Song, “A time-lapse and quantitative modelling analysis of neural stem cell motion in the absence of directional cues and in electric fields,” Journal of Neuroscience Research, vol. 88, no. 15, pp. 3267–3274, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
105. A. M. Rajnicek, L. E. Foubister, and C. D. McCaig, “Temporally and spatially coordinated roles for Rho, Rac, Cdc42 and their effectors in growth cone guidance by a physiological electric field,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 119, no. 9, pp. 1723–1735, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
106. Y. J. Chang, C. M. Hsu, C. H. Lin, M. S. C. Lu, and L. Chen, “Electrical stimulation promotes nerve growth factor-induced neurite outgrowth and signaling,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1830, no. 8, pp. 4130–4136, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
107. G. Ming, J. Henley, M. Tessier-Lavigne, H. J. Song, and M. M. Poo, “Electrical activity modulates growth cone guidance by diffusible factors,” Neuron, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 441–452, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
108. M. Mohyeddin Bonab, M. Ali Sahraian, A. Aghsaie et al., “Autologous mesenchymal stem cell therapy in progressive multiple sclerosis: an open label study,” Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 407–414, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
109. J. S. Lee, J. M. Hong, G. J. Moon et al., “A long-term follow-up study of intravenous autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in patients with ischemic stroke,” Stem Cells, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1099–1106, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
110. K. Zibara, N. Ballout, S. Mondello et al., “Combination of drug and stem cells neurotherapy: potential interventions in neurotrauma and traumatic brain injury,” Neuropharmacology, vol. 145, pp. 177–198, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
111. G. H. Wang, Y. Liu, X. B. Wu et al., “Neuroprotective effects of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells combined with nimodipine against radiation-induced brain injury through inhibition of apoptosis,” Cytotherapy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 53–64, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
112. A. Dekmak, S. Mantash, A. Shaito et al., “Stem cells and combination therapy for the treatment of traumatic brain injury,” Behavioural Brain Research, vol. 340, pp. 49–62, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
113. W. Shi, C. J. Huang, X. D. Xu et al., “Transplantation of RADA16-BDNF peptide scaffold with human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells forced with CXCR4 and activated astrocytes for repair of traumatic brain injury,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 45, pp. 247–261, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Hong Cheng 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.