| Chapter title |
Paracrine Mechanisms of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Tissue Repair.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 7 |
| Book title |
Mesenchymal Stem Cells
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3584-0_7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3582-6, 978-1-4939-3584-0
|
| Authors |
Massimiliano Gnecchi M.D., Ph.D., F.E.S.C., Patrizia Danieli Ph.D., Giuseppe Malpasso Ph.D., Maria Chiara Ciuffreda, Massimiliano Gnecchi, Patrizia Danieli, Giuseppe Malpasso |
| Editors |
Massimiliano Gnecchi |
| Abstract |
Tissue regeneration from transplanted mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) either through transdifferentiation or cell fusion was originally proposed as the principal mechanism underlying their therapeutic action. However, several studies have now shown that both these mechanisms are very inefficient. The low MSC engraftment rate documented in injured areas also refutes the hypothesis that MSC repair tissue damage by replacing cell loss with newly differentiated cells. Indeed, despite evidence of preferential homing of MSC to the site of myocardial ischemia, exogenously administered MSC show poor survival and do not persist in the infarcted area. Therefore, it has been proposed that the functional benefits observed after MSC transplantation in experimental models of tissue injury might be related to the secretion of soluble factors acting in a paracrine fashion. This hypothesis is supported by pre-clinical studies demonstrating equal or even improved organ function upon infusion of MSC-derived conditioned medium (MSC-CM) compared with MSC transplantation. Identifying key MSC-secreted factors and their functional role seems a reasonable approach for a rational design of nextgeneration MSC-based therapeutics. Here, we summarize the major findings regarding both different MSC-mediated paracrine actions and the identification of paracrine mediators. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 255 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 13% |
| Researcher | 29 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 15% |
| Unknown | 79 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 46 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 6% |
| Engineering | 11 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 39 | 15% |
| Unknown | 86 | 34% |