MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2333433191 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-20-10-672

Endothelial Progenitor Cells: A Novel Cell-based Therapy in Orthopaedic Surgery

2012· review· en· W2333433191 sur OpenAlexafffund
Kıvanç Ateşok, Ru Li, Emil H. Schemitsch

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2012
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Établissements canadiensToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineProgenitor cellBone healingBone marrowCD34Endothelial stem cellPathologyNeovascularizationRegeneration (biology)Stem cellAngiogenesisCancer researchCell biologySurgeryBiologyIn vitro

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) can be defined as bone marrow-derived precursor cells with the ability to differentiate into endothelial cells and to participate in the formation of new blood vessels. Bone marrow is the primary source of endothelial progenitors, which can be mobilized to the peripheral circulation and may seed in remote organs and tissues such as liver, spleen, heart, muscle, and adipose tissue. EPCs have been shown to express various endothelial surface markers, such as CD34, VEGFR2, and CD133, and to home to sites of ischemia1 (Figure 1).Figure 1: Phenotype of cultured endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) can be characterized according to their ability to uptake Dil-labeled acetylated low-density lipoprotein (Dil-Ac-LDL) to confirm their endothelial lineage. Image demonstrates Dil-Ac-LDL-stained EPCs under fluorescent microscope (×40).Vascular ingrowth at the fracture site has a cardinal role in the healing process and regeneration of the bone following fracture. However, segmental bone defects after severe trauma, infection, and surgical removal of tumors remain a major clinical problem. These facts, together with reports documenting the remarkable therapeutic potential of EPCs to improve neovascularization and tissue perfusion in other disciplines, have been the major drivers recently to investigate the effects of EPC therapy on fracture healing. Matsumoto et al2 investigated the therapeutic potential of systemically administered CD34+ cells on fracture healing in a rodent model. The authors transplanted human peripheral blood CD34+ cells, mononuclear cells, or saline into immunodeficient rats with a non-healing femoral fracture. Fracture healing was significantly enhanced in the CD34+ group compared with the mononuclear cell and saline groups. Laser Doppler imaging demonstrated that fracture-induced ischemia was significantly reduced in the CD34+ cell-transplanted group compared with the other groups. The authors also noted that approximately 20% of human peripheral blood CD34+ cells expressed mRNA for osteocalcin after transplantation to a fracture site; this outcome may indicate the potential of CD34+ cells for osteogenic and endothelial differentiation. Atesok et al3 evaluated the effects of the local use of ex vivo-expanded EPCs on the stimulation of angiogenesis and the promotion of bone healing at a fracture site in a rat femur osteotomy model. Based on the results of radiographic, histologic, and micro-CT comparisons of the EPC-treated group with a control group, the authors stated that “local EPC therapy significantly enhanced bone regeneration in a segmental bone defect in rat femur.” In a similar study, the same research group reported that local EPC therapy favorably affects biomechanical stability.4 Recent reports also suggest that EPCs derived from peripheral blood contribute to osteogenic differentiation by mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in vitro and that MSCs support the proliferation of EPCs.5 Aguirre et al6 investigated the interactions between bone marrow EPCs (BM-EPCs) and MSCs in an in vitro co-culture system. Their data suggested that cross-talk occurs between BM-EPCs and MSCs through paracrine and direct cell contact mechanisms, leading to modulation of the angiogenic response. In a rat model study, Seebach et al7 observed a synergistic effect between EPCs and MSCs and suggested that the initial stage of neovascularization by EPCs be considered crucial for complete bone regeneration. Positive effects of EPC therapy have been demonstrated in ligament tissue regeneration, as well. Matsumoto et al8 recently demonstrated that CD34- and CD146-expressing vascular cells exist in human anterior cruciate ligament tissues, have a potential for multilineage differentiation, and are recruited to the rupture site to participate in the intrinsic healing of injured anterior cruciate ligament. In a rodent model, Tei et al9 studied the effects of locally transplanted human peripheral blood CD34+ cells on the healing of medial collateral ligament injury. Macroscopic, histologic, and biomechanical assessments showed significantly enhanced ligament healing in a CD34+ cell transplantation group compared with a control group. The authors suggested that “local transplantation of circulating human CD34+ cells may augment the ligament healing process by promoting a favorable environment through neovascularization.” Based on the promising results from ex vivo and animal model EPC studies, clinical trials have been started. As a pilot case from a clinical trial, Kuroda et al10 reported the results of transplantation of autologous peripheral blood CD34+ cells—the hematopoietic/EPC-enriched population—into a patient with nonunion of a tibia fracture. Clinical and radiologic healing of the fracture was achieved at 12 weeks after the cell therapy with bone grafting, and no serious short-term complications were encountered. EPCs, with their unique features, such as the ability to differentiate into endothelial cells and to participate in the establishment of neovasculature, in addition to their high plasticity, may offer therapeutic alternatives for both bone and ligament tissue engineering. It is likely that more investigators will be attracted in the near future to exploring the potential of these cells in orthopaedic surgery.11

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,985
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,004
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsMême sujetAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerTravaux en français237 207