Review

*Author for correspondence:

Essential Sports & Spine Solutions, 6100 East Main Street 107, Columbus, OH 43213, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Alex Fazioli

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2958-3206

Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Erie, PA 16509, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Paige Matijasich

University of Toledo College of Medicine & Life Sciences, Toledo, OH 43614, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:21 Feb 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2021-0084

View article

Abstract

The diagnosis and management of CNS injuries comprises a large portion of psychiatric practice. Many clinical and preclinical studies have demonstrated the benefit of treating CNS injuries using various regenerative techniques and materials such as stem cells, biomaterials and genetic modification. Therefore it is the goal of this review article to briefly summarize the pathogenesis of CNS injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries and cerebrovascular accidents. Next, we discuss the role of natural recovery and regeneration of the CNS, explore the relevance in clinical practice and discuss emerging and cutting-edge treatments and current barriers in the field of regenerative medicine.

Plain language summary

When a person gets a cut on their skin, the human body can usually repair this injury on its own, allowing this tissue to return to normal function. In some cases, when the central nervous system (CNS) is damaged, the human body’s regenerative capabilities are not sufficient to repair it. There are numerous treatments being explored in the field of regenerative medicine that have the potential to assist the human body in repairing the CNS after significant injury and to improve functionality. This paper explores how pharmacological and stem cell treatments, genetic modifications and implantable biomaterials can help repair damage to the CNS by replacing lost tissue and creating an environment that enhances healing.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Ghobrial GM, Amenta PS, Maltenfort M et al. Longitudinal incidence and concurrence rates for traumatic brain injury and spine injury–a twenty year analysis. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 123, 174–180 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers KJ. Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 95(5), 986–995.e981 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Valadka AB, Andrews BT. What is the Best Way to Assess and Classify Spinal Cord-Injured Patients? In: Neurotrauma: Evidence-based Answers to Common Questions. Hiscock T (Ed.). Thieme, NY, USA, 37–41 (2005).
Google Scholar
4. Reichert WM. Indwelling neural implants: strategies for contending with the in vivo environment. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, FL, USA ( 2007).
Google Scholar
5. Lifshitz J.Experimental CNS trauma: a general overview of neurotrauma research. Kobeissy FH (Ed.). CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, FL, USA (2015). •• Provides vital background information on what the different types of CNS injuries are and what challenges physicians face when treating them.
Google Scholar
6. Hochman ME. IV Thrombolysis 3 to 4.5 Hours after an Acute Ischemic Stroke. In: 50 Studies Every Neurologist Should Know. Hwang DYGreer DM (Eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, GB, 241–247 (2016).
Google Scholar
7. Jones TH, Morawetz RB, Crowell RM et al. Thresholds of focal cerebral ischemia in awake monkeys. J. Neurosurg. 54(6), 773–782 (1981).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Wass CT, Lanier WL. Glucose modulation of ischemic brain injury: review and clinical recommendations. Mayo Clin. Proc. 71(8), 801–812 (1996).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Verma A. Opportunities for neuroprotection in traumatic brain injury. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 15(5), 1149–1161 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Fawcett JW. Overcoming inhibition in the damaged spinal cord. J. Neurotrauma 23(3–4), 371–383 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Logan A, Berry M. Cellular and Molecular Determinants of Glial Scar Formation. In: Molecular and Cellular Biology of Neuroprotection in the CNS. Alzheimer and Molecular Determinants of Glial Scar Formation C (Ed.). Springer Science & Business Media, NY, USA, 115–158 (2012).
Google Scholar
12. Shlosberg D, Benifla M, Kaufer D, Friedman A. Blood–brain barrier breakdown as a therapeutic target in traumatic brain injury. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 6(7), 393–403 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Ming G-L, Song H. Adult neurogenesis in the mammalian brain: significant answers and significant questions. Neuron 70(4), 687–702 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Turrigiano G. Homeostatic synaptic plasticity: local and global mechanisms for stabilizing neuronal function. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 4(1), a005736 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Darian-Smith C. Synaptic plasticity, neurogenesis, and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Neuroscientist 15(2), 149–165 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Ming G-L, Song H. Adult neurogenesis in the mammalian central nervous system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 28, 223–250 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Carrera E, Tononi G. Diaschisis: past, present, future. Brain 137(9), 2408–2422 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Lindvall O, Kokaia Z. Neurogenesis following stroke affecting the adult brain. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7(11), a019034 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Neumann H, Kotter M, Franklin R. Debris clearance by microglia: an essential link between degeneration and regeneration. Brain 132(2), 288–295 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Azari MF, Mathias L, Ozturk E, Cram DS, Boyd RL, Petratos S. Mesenchymal stem cells for treatment of CNS injury. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 8(4), 316–323 (2010). • Overview of different strategies to treat brain and spinal cord injuries and in-depth description of the use and benefits of treating CNS injuries with mesenchymal stem cells.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Hoshide R, Cheung V, Marshall L, Kasper E, Chen CC. Do corticosteroids play a role in the management of traumatic brain injury? Surg. Neurol. Int. 7, 84 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Bracken MB. Steroids for acute spinal cord injury. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1(1), CD001046 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Walters BC, Hadley MN, Hurlbert RJ et al. Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries: 2013 update. Neurosurgery 60(CN_Suppl. 1), 82–91 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Nagoshi N, Nakashima H, Fehlings MG. Riluzole as a neuroprotective drug for spinal cord injury: from bench to bedside. Molecules 20(5), 7775–7789 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Plane JM, Shen Y, Pleasure DE, Deng W. Prospects for minocycline neuroprotection. Arch. Neurol. 67(12), 1442–1448 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Ribas VT, Costa MR. Gene manipulation strategies to identify molecular regulators of axon regeneration in the central nervous system. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 11, 231 (2017). • Review of studies that investigated which genetic factors play a key role in adult CNS regeneration; discusses the need for combinational therapies to achieve functional CNS recovery.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Erta M, Quintana A, Hidalgo J. Interleukin-6, a major cytokine in the central nervous system. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 8(9), 1254 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Ye L, Huang Y, Zhao L et al. IL-1β and TNF-α induce neurotoxicity through glutamate production: a potential role for neuronal glutaminase. J. Neurochem. 125(6), 897–908 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Li G, Bien-Ly N, Andrews-Zwilling Y et al. GABAergic interneuron dysfunction impairs hippocampal neurogenesis in adult apolipoprotein E4 knockin mice. Cell Stem Cell 5(6), 634–645 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Sun B, Halabisky B, Zhou Y et al. Imbalance between GABAergic and glutamatergic transmission impairs adult neurogenesis in an animal model of Alzheimer’s disease. Cell Stem Cell 5(6), 624–633 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Carpentier PA, Palmer TD. Immune influence on adult neural stem cell regulation and function. Neuron 64(1), 79–92 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Detante O, Jaillard A, Moisan A et al. Biotherapies in stroke. Rev. Neurol. (Paris) 170(12), 779–798 (2014). • Review of cell-based and growth factor-based neurorestorative therapies; discusses the sources of stem cells, mechanism of action, optimal delivery route and time window, as well as combinational therapies of stem cells with growth factors or other biomaterials.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Popa-Wagner A, Filfan M, Uzoni A, Pourgolafshan P, Buga A-M .Poststroke cell therapy of the aged brain. Neural Plast. 2015, 839638 (2015). • Discusses current strategies to obtain stem cells, how they should be delivered for therapy, and what the benefits are of their various mechanisms of action.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Riazi AM, Kwon SY, Stanford WL. Stem cell sources for regenerative medicine. Methods Mol. Biol. 482, 55–90 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Ronaghi M, Erceg S, Moreno-Manzano V, Stojkovic M. Challenges of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury: human embryonic stem cells, endogenous neural stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells? Stem Cells 28(1), 93–99 (2009).
Google Scholar
36. Andrzejewska A, Lukomska B, Janowski M. Concise Review: Mesenchymal Stem Cells: From Roots to Boost. Stem Cells 37(7), 855–864 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Shi Y, Inoue H, Wu JC, Yamanaka S. Induced pluripotent stem cell technology: a decade of progress. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16(2), 115–130 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Jung Y, Bauer G, Nolta JA. Concise review: induced pluripotent stem cell-derived mesenchymal stem cells: progress toward safe clinical products. Stem Cells 30(1), 42–47 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Fernández-Susavila H, Bugallo-Casal A, Castillo J, Campos F. Adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells for stroke treatment. Front. Neurol. 10, 908 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Kassis I, Vaknin-Dembinsky A, Karussis D. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells: agents of immunomodulation and neuroprotection. Curr. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 6(1), 63–68 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Chen J, Venkat P, Zacharek A, Chopp M. Neurorestorative therapy for stroke. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 382 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Villapol S, Balarezo MG, Affram K, Saavedra JM, Symes AJ. Neurorestoration after traumatic brain injury through angiotensin II receptor blockage. Brain 138(11), 3299–3315 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Noda A, Fushiki H, Murakami Y et al. Brain penetration of telmisartan, a unique centrally acting angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, studied by PET in conscious rhesus macaques. Nucl. Med. Biol. 39(8), 1232–1235 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Mcdonald JW, Liu X-Z, Qu Y et al. Transplanted embryonic stem cells survive, differentiate and promote recovery in injured rat spinal cord. Nat. Med. 5(12), 1410–1412 (1999).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Qu J, Zhang H. Roles of mesenchymal stem cells in spinal cord injury. Stem Cells Int. 2017, 5251313 (2017). • Detailed description of the behavior of mesenchymal stem cells and how they can be used to help treat spinal cord injuries. Includes exciting studies investigating combination therapies of mesenchymal stem cells.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Xu H, Zhang J, Tsang KS, Yang H, Gao W-Q. Therapeutic potential of human amniotic epithelial cells on injuries and disorders in the central nervous system. Stem Cells Int. 2019, 5432301 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Nakagomi T, Takagi T, Beppu M, Yoshimura S, Matsuyama T. Neural regeneration by regionally induced stem cells within post-stroke brains: novel therapy perspectives for stroke patients. World J. Stem Cells 11(8), 452 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Branscome H, Paul S, Khatkar P et al. Stem cell extracellular vesicles and their potential to contribute to the repair of damaged CNS cells. J. Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 15(3), 520–537 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Sun G, Li G, Li D et al. hucMSC derived exosomes promote functional recovery in spinal cord injury mice via attenuating inflammation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 89, 194–204 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Wang P, Ma H, Zhang Y et al. Plasma exosome-derived microRNAs as novel biomarkers of traumatic brain injury in rats. Int. J. Med. Sci. 17(4), 437 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Soares S, Von Boxberg Y, Nothias F. Repair strategies for traumatic spinal cord injury, with special emphasis on novel biomaterial-based approaches. Rev. Neurol. (Paris) 176(4), 252–260 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Bedir T, Ulag S, Ustundag CB, Gunduz O. 3D bioprinting applications in neural tissue engineering for spinal cord injury repair. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 110, 110741 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53. Yuan J, Botchway BO, Zhang Y, Wang X, Liu X. Combined bioscaffold with stem cells and exosomes can improve traumatic brain injury. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 16(2), 323–334 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
54. El Seblani N, Welleford AS, Quintero JE, Van Horne CG, Gerhardt GA. Invited review: utilizing peripheral nerve regenerative elements to repair damage in the CNS. J. Neurosci. Methods 335, 108623 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. Anderson KD, Guest JD, Dietrich WD et al. Safety of autologous human Schwann cell transplantation in subacute thoracic spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma 34(21), 2950–2963 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
56. Park HC, Shim YS, Ha Y et al. Treatment of complete spinal cord injury patients by autologous bone marrow cell transplantation and administration of granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor. Tissue Eng. 11(5–6), 913–922 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Syková E, Jendelová P, Urdzíková L, Lesný P, Hejčl A. Bone marrow stem cells and polymer hydrogels – two strategies for spinal cord injury repair. Cell. Mol. Neurobiol. 26(7–8), 1111–1127 (2006).
Google Scholar
58. Zhang Z-X, Guan L-X, Zhang K, Zhang Q, Dai L-J. A combined procedure to deliver autologous mesenchymal stromal cells to patients with traumatic brain injury. Cytotherapy 10(2), 134–139 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Cox CS, Hetz RA, Liao GP et al. Treatment of severe adult traumatic brain injury using bone marrow mononuclear cells. Stem Cells 35(4), 1065–1079 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Albu S, Kumru H, Coll R et al. Clinical effects of intrathecal administration of expanded Wharton jelly mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with chronic complete spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled study. Cytotherapy 23(2), 146–156 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Maksymowicz S, Barczewska M, Grudniak M et al. Safety of intrathecal injection of Wharton’s jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis therapy. Neural Regen. Res. 14(2), 313 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
62. Levi AD, Okonkwo DO, Park P et al. Emerging safety of intramedullary transplantation of human neural stem cells in chronic cervical and thoracic spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery 82(4), 562–575 (2017).
Google Scholar
63. Kim KD, Lee KS, Coric D et al. A study of probable benefit of a bioresorbable polymer scaffold for safety and neurological recovery in patients with complete thoracic spinal cord injury: 6-month results from the INSPIRE study. J. Neurosurg. Spine 34(5), 808–817 (2021).
Google Scholar
64. Badner A, Siddiqui AM, Fehlings MG. Spinal cord injuries: how could cell therapy help? Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 17(5), 529–541 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
65. Kumar P, Kandoi S, Misra R, Vijayalakshmi S, Rajagopal K, Verma RS. The mesenchymal stem cell secretome: a new paradigm towards cell-free therapeutic mode in regenerative medicine. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 46, 1–9 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 4

Metrics

Downloaded 223 times

History

Received 14 June 2021

Accepted 31 January 2022

Published online 21 February 2022

Published in print April 2022

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

N Verma, A Fazioli and P Matijasich designed the research project. N Verma, A Fazioli and P Matijasich reviewed appropriate literature; N Verma, A Fazioli and P Matijasich wrote and edited the manuscript. All authors have read the manuscript and approved the final version.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Natural recovery and regeneration of the central nervous system

Abstract

Plain language summary

References