It was shown as long as half a century ago that bone marrow is a source of not only hematopoietic stem cells, but also stem cells of mesenchymal tissues. Then the term “mesenchymal stem cells” (MSCs) was coined in the early 1990s, and more than a decade later, the criteria for defining MSCs have been released by the International Society for Cellular Therapy. The easy derivation from a variety of fetal and adult tissues and undemanding cell culture conditions made MSCs an attractive research object. It was followed by the avalanche of reports from preclinical studies on potentially therapeutic properties of MSCs, such as immunomodulation, trophic support and capability for a spontaneous differentiation into connective tissue cells, and differentiation into the majority of cell types upon specific inductive conditions. Although ontogenesis, niche, and heterogeneity of MSCs are still under investigation, there is a rapid boost of attempts at clinical applications of MSCs, especially for a flood of civilization‐driven conditions in so quickly aging societies, not only in the developed countries, but also in the populous developing world. The fields of regenerative medicine and oncology are particularly extensively addressed by MSC applications, in part due to the paucity of traditional therapeutic options for these highly demanding and costly conditions. There are currently almost 1,000 clinical trials registered worldwide at http://Clinicaltrials.gov/, and it seems that we are starting to witness the snowball effect with MSCs becoming a powerful global industry; however, the spectacular effects of MSCs in the clinic still need to be shown. Stem Cells 2019;37:855–864

Ischemic stroke is the third cause of death in the developed countries and the main reason of severe disability. Brain ischemia leads to the production of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) by neurons and glial cells which results in astrocyte and microglia activation, pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines production, blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption, infiltration of leukocytes from the peripheral blood into the infarcted area, and further exacerbation of tissue damage. However, some immune cells such as microglia or monocytes are capable to change their phenotype to anti-inflammatory, produce anti-inflammatory cytokines, and protect injured nervous tissue. In this situation, therapies, which will modulate the immune response after brain ischemia, such as transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are catching interest. Many experimental studies of ischemic stroke revealed that MSCs are able to modulate immune response and act neuroprotective, through stimulation of neurogenesis, oligodendrogenesis, astrogenesis, and angiogenesis. MSCs may also have an ability to replace injured cells, but the release of paracrine factors directly into the environment or via extracellular vesicles (EVs) seems to play the most pronounced role. EVs are membrane structures containing proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids, and they express similar properties as the cells from which they are derived. However, EVs have lower immunogenicity, do not express the risk of vessel blockage, and have the capacity to cross the blood-brain barrier. Experimental studies of ischemic stroke showed that EVs have immunomodulatory and neuroprotective properties; therefore, they can stimulate neurogenesis and angiogenesis. Up to now, 20 clinical trials with MSC transplantation into patients after stroke were performed, from which two concerned on only hemorrhagic stroke and 13 studied only on ischemic stroke. There is no clinical trial with EV injection into patients after brain ischemia so far, but the case with miR-124-enriched EVs administration is planned and probably there will be more clinical studies with EV transplantation in the near future.

IMPORTANCE Some uncertainty about the clinical value and dosing of atropine for the treatment of myopia in children remains. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy vs the adverse effects of various doses of atropine in the therapy for myopia in children. DATA SOURCES Data were obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to April 30, 2016. The reference lists of published reviews and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for additional relevant studies. Key search terms included myopia, refractive errors, and atropine. Only studies published in English were included. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that enrolled patients younger than 18 years with myopia who received atropine in at least 1 treatment arm and that reported the annual rate of myopia progression and/or any adverse effects of atropine therapy were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by Q, H, and I 2 statistics, and a meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration 6 aspects of bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk for bias. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was a difference in efficacy and the presence of adverse effects at different doses of atropine vs control conditions. The secondary outcomes included the differences in adverse effects between Asian and white patients. RESULTS Nineteen unique studies involving 3137 unique children were included in the analysis. The weighted mean differences between the atropine and control groups in myopia progression were 0.50 diopters (D) per year (95% CI, 0.24-0.76 D per year) for low-dose atropine, 0.57 D per year (95% CI, 0.43-0.71 D per year) for moderate-dose atropine, and 0.62 D per year (95% CI, 0.45-0.79 D per year) for high-dose atropine (P < .001), which translated to a high effect size (Cohen d, 0.97, 1.76, and 1.94, respectively). All doses of atropine, therefore, were equally beneficial with respect to myopia progression (P = .15). High-dose atropine were associated with more adverse effects, such as the 43.1% incidence of photophobia compared with 6.3% for low-dose atropine and 17.8% for moderate-dose atropine (χ 2 2 = 7.05; P = .03). In addition, differences in the incidence of adverse effects between Asian and white patients were not identified (χ 2 1 = 0.81; P = .37 for photophobia). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This meta-analysis suggests that the efficacy of atropine is dose independent within this range, whereas the adverse effects are dose dependent.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are membrane-surrounded structures released by most cell types. They are characterized by a specific set of proteins, lipids and nucleic acids. EVs have been recognized as potent vehicles of intercellular communication to transmit biological signals between cells. In addition, pathophysiological roles of EVs in conditions like cancer, infectious diseases and neurodegenerative disorders are well established. In recent years focus has been shifted on therapeutic use of stem cell derived-EVs. Use of stem cell derived-EVs present distinct advantage over the whole stem cells as EVs do not replicate and after intravenous administration, they are less likely to trap inside the lungs. From the therapeutic perspective, the most promising cellular sources of EVs are mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which are easy to obtain and maintain. Therapeutic activity of MSCs has been shown in numerous animal models and the beneficial paracrine effect of MSCs may be mediated by EVs. The various components of MSC derived-EVs such as proteins, lipids, and RNA might play a specific therapeutic role. In this review, we characterize the role of EVs in immune and central nervous system (CNS); present evidences for defective signaling of these vesicles in neurodegeneration and therapeutic role of EVs in CNS.

IntroductionIntra-arterial cell infusion is an efficient delivery route with which to target organs such as the ischemic brain. However, adverse events including microembolisms and decreased cerebral blood flow were recently reported after intra-arterial cell delivery in rodent models, raising safety concerns. We tested the hypothesis that cell dose, infusion volume, and velocity would be related to the severity of complications after intra-arterial cell delivery.MethodsIn this study, 38 rats were subjected to a sham middle cerebral artery occlusion (sham-MCAO) procedure before being infused with allogeneic bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cells at different cell doses (0 to 1.0 × 106), infusion volumes (0.5 to 1.0 ml), and infusion times (3 to 6 minutes). An additional group (n = 4) was infused with 1.0 × 106 cells labeled with iron oxide for in vivo tracking of cells. Cells were infused through the external carotid artery under laser Doppler flowmetry monitoring 48 hours after sham-MCAO. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed 24 hours after cell infusion to reveal cerebral embolisms or hemorrhage. Limb placing, cylinder, and open field tests were conducted to assess sensorimotor functions before the rats were perfused for histology.ResultsA cell dose-related reduction in cerebral blood flow was noted, as well as an increase in embolic events and concomitant lesion size, and sensorimotor impairment. In addition, a low infusion velocity (0.5 ml/6 minutes) was associated with high rate of complications. Lesions on MRI were confirmed with histology and corresponded to necrotic cell loss and blood-brain barrier leakage.ConclusionsParticularly cell dose but also infusion velocity contribute to complications encountered after intra-arterial cell transplantation. This should be considered before planning efficacy studies in rats and, potentially, in patients with stroke.

Neurological disorders are becoming a growing burden as society ages, and there is a compelling need to address this spiraling problem. Stem cell‐based regenerative medicine is becoming an increasingly attractive approach to designing therapies for such disorders. The unique characteristics of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) make them among the most sought after cell sources. Researchers have extensively studied the modulatory properties of MSCs and their engineering, labeling, and delivery methods to the brain. The first part of this review provides an overview of studies on the application of MSCs to various neurological diseases, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other less frequently studied clinical entities. In the second part, stem cell delivery to the brain is focused. This fundamental but still understudied problem needs to be overcome to apply stem cells to brain diseases successfully. Here the value of cell engineering is also emphasized to facilitate MSC diapedesis, migration, and homing to brain areas affected by the disease to implement precision medicine paradigms into stem cell‐based therapies.

Intracarotid transplantation has shown potential for efficient stem cell delivery to the brain. However, reported complications, such as compromised cerebral blood flow (CBF), prompted us to perform further safety studies. Glial-restricted precursors (GRPs) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were transplanted into the internal carotid artery of rats (n ¼ 99), using a microcatheter. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to detect post-transplantation complications, including the development of stroke, for the following experimental variables: cell size, cell dose, cell infusion velocity, delay between artery occlusion and cell infusion, discordant versus concordant xenografting, and intracarotid transplantation with preserved versus compromised blood flow. Immunocompatibility and delayed infusion did not affect the number of complications. An infusion velocity over X1 mL/minute often resulted in stroke (27 out of 44 animals), even with an infusion of vehicle, whereas a lower velocity (0.2 mL/minute) was safe for the infusion of both vehicle and smaller cells (GRPs, diameter ¼ 15 mm). Infusion of larger cells (MSCs, diameter ¼ 25 mm) resulted in a profound decrease (75±17%) in CBF. Stroke lesions occurred frequently (12 out of 15 animals) when injecting 2 Â 10 6 MSCs, but not after lowering the dose to 1 Â 10 6 cells. The present results show that cell size and infusion velocity are critical factors in developing safe protocols for intracarotid stem cell transplantation. Journal of Cerebral Blood INTRODUCTIONThe intravascular route of stem cell delivery has met with increasing interest because of the minimally invasive nature of the procedure and the potential for broad cell distribution. Recent reports 1,2 have revealed positive effects of intravascular cell transplantation in animal models of neurologic disorders. The evaluation of neural cell distribution after intravenous cell transplantation has shown that most of the cells are initially entrapped within the lungs and do not travel to the brain.3 It has been hypothesized that an intraarterial approach would be a more efficient route of cell delivery to the brain, as this approach avoids the pulmonary circulation. This approach is particularly attractive when selecting and sorting cells for adhesion molecules, which can enhance cell homing and therapeutic outcome. 4 Moreover, it has been recently shown that transfection of adhesion molecules in progenitor cells results in a dramatic increase of their homing to inflamed brain endothelium.

SDF-1 is ubiquitously expressed in vertebrate tissues in a constitutive manner. It performs an essential role in cell migration and proliferation as well as participates in tissue-specific physiological processes such as neuromodulation. It is also involved in many pathological processes including: HIV infection, metastatic malignancy, chronic inflammatory disorders and benign proliferative diseases. SDF-1 is mostly regulated at the splicing, and not transcriptional level. Different splicing variants share agonist potency to their cognate receptor, CXCR4, but are characterized by distinct properties. SDF-1α is the predominant isoform found in all organs, but undergoes rapid proteolysis in blood. SDF-1β is more resistant to blood-dependent degradation, stimulates angiogenesis and is present in highly vascularized organs such as: the liver, spleen and kidneys. In contrast, SDF-1γ is located in very active, less vascularized organs susceptible to infarction such as the heart and the brain. The understanding of the functional diversity of the different splicing variants will help in developing therapeutic strategies.