SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Stem cell transplantation in neurological diseases: improving effectiveness in animal models.

Front Cell Dev Biol · 2014-05-14

DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2014.00017PMID: 25364724

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Neurological diseases afflict a growing proportion of the human population. There are two reasons for this: first, the average age of the population (especially in the industrialized world) is increasing, and second, the diagnostic tools to detect these pathologies are now more sophisticated and can be used on a higher percentage of the population. In many cases, neurological disease has a pharmacological treatment which, as in the case of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Epilepsy, and Multiple Sclerosis can reduce the symptoms and slow down the course of the disease but cannot reverse its effects or heal the patient. In the last two decades the transplantation approach, by means of stem cells of different origin, has been suggested for the treatment of neurological diseases. The choice of slightly different animal models and the differences in methods of stem cell preparation make it difficult to compare the results of transplantation experiments. Moreover, the translation of these results into clinical trials with human subjects is difficult and has so far met with little success. This review seeks to discuss the reasons for these difficulties by considering the differences between human and animal cells (including isolation, handling and transplantation) and between the human disease model and the animal disease model.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.