It’s a world’s first…Researchers from California, Japan and Wisconsin report that they have successfully directed stem cell-derived neurons to regenerate lost tissue in damaged corticospinal tracts of rats, resulting in functional benefit.
Stem Cell-Derived Neurons Regenerate Tissue in Spinal Cord
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary
“The corticospinal projection is the most important motor system in humans, ” said senior study author Mark Tuszynski, M.D., Ph.D., professor in the UC San Diego School of Medicine Department of Neurosciences and director of the University of California San Diego Translational Neuroscience Institute, in the March 28, 2016 news release. “It has not been successfully regenerated before. Many have tried, many have failed—including us, in previous efforts.”
“The new thing here was that we used neural stem cells for the first time to determine whether they, unlike any other cell type tested, would support regeneration. And to our surprise, they did.”
As indicated in the news release, “the researchers grafted multipotent neural progenitor cells into sites of spinal cord injury in rats. The stem cells were directed to specifically develop as a spinal cord, and they did so robustly, forming functional synapses that improved forelimb movements in the rats. The feat upends an existing belief that corticospinal neurons lacked internal mechanisms needed for regeneration.”
“Previous studies have reported functional recovery in rats following various therapies for spinal cord injury, but none had involved regeneration of corticospinal axons. In humans, the corticospinal tract extends from the cerebral cortex in the upper brain down into the spinal cord.”
Dr. Tuszynski told OTW, “The most interesting aspect of this work was to find that this class of axons could be successfully regenerated. Many of us had substantial doubts that this was possible.”
“The most important take-away message for orthopedic surgeons is that this brings us a step closer to developing a potential therapy for spinal cord injury, but we are not there yet.”
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.