Regenerative medicine therapies hold enormous potential for a variety of currently incurable conditions with high unmet clinical need. Most progress in this field to date has been achieved with cell-based regenerative medicine therapies, with over a thousand clinical trials performed up to 2015. However, lack of adequate safety and efficacy data is currently limiting wider uptake of these therapies. To facilitate clinical translation, non-invasive in vivo imaging technologies that enable careful evaluation and characterisation of the administered cells and their effects on host tissues are critically required to evaluate their safety and efficacy in relevant preclinical models. This article reviews the most common imaging technologies available and how they can be applied to regenerative medicine research. We cover details of how each technology works, which cell labels are most appropriate for different applications, and the value of multi-modal imaging approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of the responses to cell therapy in vivo.

BackgroundCell-based regenerative medicine therapies are now frequently tested in clinical trials. In many conditions, cell therapies are administered systemically, but there is little understanding of their fate, and adverse events are often under-reported. Currently, it is only possible to assess safety and fate of cell therapies in preclinical studies, specifically by monitoring animals longitudinally using multi-modal imaging approaches. Here, using a suite of in vivo imaging modalities to explore the fate of a range of human and murine cells, we investigate how route of administration, cell type and host immune status affect the fate of administered cells.MethodsWe applied a unique imaging platform combining bioluminescence, optoacoustic and magnetic resonance imaging modalities to assess the safety of different human and murine cell types by following their biodistribution and persistence in mice following administration into the venous or arterial system.ResultsLongitudinal imaging analyses (i) suggested that the intra-arterial route may be more hazardous than intravenous administration for certain cell types, (ii) revealed that the potential of a mouse mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC) line to form tumours depended on administration route and mouse strain and (iii) indicated that clinically tested human umbilical cord (hUC)-derived MSCs can transiently and unexpectedly proliferate when administered intravenously to mice.ConclusionsIn order to perform an adequate safety assessment of potential cell-based therapies, a thorough understanding of cell biodistribution and fate post administration is required. The non-invasive imaging platform used here can expose not only the general organ distribution of these therapies, but also a detailed view of their presence within different organs and, importantly, tumourigenic potential. Our observation that the hUC-MSCs but not the human bone marrow (hBM)-derived MSCs persisted for a period in some animals suggests that therapies with these cells should proceed with caution.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13287-018-1076-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundCell-based regenerative medicine therapies are now frequently tested in clinical trials. In many conditions, cell therapies are administered systemically, but there is little understanding of their fate, and adverse events are often under-reported. Currently, it is only possible to assess safety and fate of cell therapies in preclinical studies, specifically by monitoring animals longitudinally using multimodal imaging approaches. Here, using a suite of in vivo imaging modalities to explore the fate of a range of human and murine cells, we investigate how route of administration, cell type and host immune status affect the fate of administered cells.MethodsWe applied a unique imaging toolkit combining bioluminescence, optoacoustic and magnetic resonance imaging modalities to assess the safety of different human and murine cell types by following their biodistribution and persistence in mice following administration into the venous or arterial system. Results: Longitudinal imaging analyses (i) suggested that the intra-arterial route may be more hazardous than intravenous administration for certain cell types; (ii) revealed that the potential of a mouse mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC) line to form tumours, depended on administration route and mouse strain; and (iii) indicated that clinically tested human umbilical cord (hUC)-derived MSCs can transiently and unexpectedly proliferate when administered intravenously to mice.ConclusionsIn order to perform an adequate safety assessment of potential cell-based therapies, a thorough understanding of cell biodistribution and fate post administration is required. The non-invasive imaging toolbox used here can expose not only the general organ distribution of these therapies, but also a detailed view of their presence within different organs and, importantly, tumourigenic potential. Our observation that the hUC-MSCs but not the human bone marrow (hBM)-derived MSCs persisted for a period in some animals, suggests that therapies with these cells should proceed with caution.

Warfarin remains the oral anticoagulant of choice in sub-Saharan Africa. However, dosing is challenging due to a highly variable clinical response for a given dose. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinical warfarin doseinitiation model in sub-Saharan Black-African patients. For the development cohort, we used data from 364 patients who were recruited from 8 outpatient clinics and hospital departments in Uganda and South Africa (June 2018-July 2019). Validation was undertaken using the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) dataset (690 black patients). Four predictors (age, weight, target International Normalized Ratio range, and HIV status) were included in the final model, which achieved mean absolute errors (MAEs; mean of absolute differences between true dose and dose predicted by the model) of 11.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.4-12.8) and 12.5 (95% CI 11.6-13.4) mg/week in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Two other clinical models, IWPC and Gage, respectively, obtained MAEs of 12.5 (95% CI 11.3-13.7) and 12.7 (95% CI 11.5-13.8) mg/week in the development cohort, and 12.1 (95% CI 11.2-13.0) and 12.2 (95% CI 11.4-13.1) mg/week in the validation cohort. Compared with fixed dose-initiation, our model decreased the percentage of patients at high risk of suboptimal anticoagulation by 7.5% (1.5-13.7%) and 11.9% (7.1-16.8%) in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The clinical utility of this model will be tested in a prospective study.