Abstract
The modern concept of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) implies the transfer of the donor’s hematopoietic system exclusively, the essence of which is the infusion of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in the form of a single-cell suspension into the body of the recipient, who is previously subjected to intensive high-dose chemotherapy in order to eradicate tumor cells and destroy his own hematopoiesis, including immune cells (to exclude immunological conflict). This concept does not include transplantation of BM stroma, because the results of early works dating back to the 70–80s of the twentieth century spoke in favor of the fact that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and their progeny are not capable of transplantation. Today, there are strong reasons to state that such an assumption is wrong. Despite the low engraftment efficiency of MSCs demonstrated in the early studies, alternative targeted strategies could lead to successful MSC transplantation. In this chapter, the question of the possibility of BM stroma transplantation is considered, arguments in favor of the expediency of co-transplantation of MSCs and HSCs in the therapy of blood system diseases are given, and a new concept of co-transplantation of BM stroma and the hematopoietic system is proposed.
Keywords
- bone marrow transplantation
- MSCs
- MSC transplantation
- MSCs and HSCs co-transplantation
- alternative concept of bone marrow transplantation
- bone marrow stroma damage
- MSCs stable engraftment
1. Introduction
Allogeneic BM transplantation (alloBMT) is widely used for the therapy of a whole range of malignant hematologic diseases, primarily acute leukemia and aggressive lymphomas, as well as other diseases of the blood system, such as myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and aplastic anemia (AA). It is often the only way to achieve long-term remission in a patient or even cure the disease. There are several graft sources available for alloBMT, namely primary whole BM (BM), BM primed with granulocyte colony growth factor (G-CSF), mobilized CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), and umbilical cord blood HSCs. The current trend in hematology is that mobilized CD34+ cells are used progressively more often than other sources. These cells are mobilized from the donor’s BM into the peripheral blood (PB) using several stimulants and collected by apheresis. Compared to the whole BM as a source of graft, this approach has a number of advantages, including low invasiveness for a donor, no traumatization of the donor, the ability to control the cellularity of the transplant by selecting the optimal protocols of mobilization and apheresis, and the ability to prepare for collection of the cells on an outpatient basis. At the same time, this approach excludes transplantation of the stromal component of BM. After infusion of donor CD34+ cells, the hematopoietic tissue of the BM and immune system is replaced by donor hematopoietic cells, but the stromal tissue of the BM remains the recipient’s own. There are a number of fundamental problems associated with this approach, since the recipient’s own stroma is allogeneic to the hematopoietic graft, partially damaged by previous chemotherapy, and its properties are altered by tumor cells, which may lead to ineffective reconstitution of hematopoiesis or poor graft function and even graft failure. Moreover, the preserved host stroma can support the survival of leukemia stem cells (LSCs), which are a source of relapses and refractory course of the disease. Thus, there are significant arguments in favor of transplanting not only hematopoietic but also stromal tissue of the BM from the same donor. This will reduce the incidence of allogeneic graft failures, relapses, and refractory course of the disease and, ultimately, will increase the long-term survival of patients or will lead to the cure of those diseases that are currently considered to be incurable. Successful BM stroma transplantation will also increase the treatment efficiency of diseases associated with bone, fat, and cartilage dysfunction, as early attempts to use mesenchymal stromal cells showed promising but short-term clinical responses [1, 2, 3].
Despite the high relevance of BM stroma transplantation, to date, among hematologists, there is an entrenched view that stroma transplantation is impossible. This opinion is based on the results of early studies dating back to the 70–80s of the twentieth century stating that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and their progeny are not capable of transplantation, at least via intravenous injection in the form of a single-cell suspension. Today, there are strong reasons to state that such a view is wrong. In this chapter, the question of the possibility of BM stroma transplantation is considered, arguments in favor of the expediency of co-transplantation of MSCs and HSCs in the therapy of blood system diseases are given, and a new concept of co-transplantation of BM stroma and the hematopoietic system is proposed.
2. Early studies stating that BM stroma is not transplantable
There are several key seminal studies in which the question of BM stroma transplantability was considered, and the authors concluded that the answer is “no.”
Several studies on this subject are common in their design. They investigated donor chimerism in plastic-adherent stromal cell layers of long-term bone marrow cultures (LTBMCs) developed from the BM of patients with different hematologic malignancies after HLA-identical or compatible alloBMT from donors of the opposite sex [4, 5, 6]. The authors stated that stromal cells within LTBMCs were exclusively of host origin. An analogous approach was implemented in a mouse model [7]. The authors did not detect donor cells in the stromal sublayer of LTBMCs derived from the BM of mice that had been previously irradiated and then transplanted with BM from donor mice whose genome contained the marker chromosome T6.
Attempts to clarify the transplantability of BM stroma were also made later, using other methods, in particular,
Thus, we state that in most of the studies published in the 70s and 80s of the twentieth century, both on animal models and in studies involving humans, it was shown that in BM transplantations, in which a single-cell suspension of total BM cells without separation into fractions of hematopoietic and non-hematopoietic cells was used as a source of graft, donor stromal cells were not detected either in the primary BM of recipients after alloBMT or in the stromal sublayers of LTBMCs obtained from such BM. Although these studies were conducted on a methodological level that corresponded to the level of technological development of that time, they had several methodological flaws, such as insufficient sensitivity and utilizing cultured cells instead of primary BM.
The given analysis of studies concerning MSC and BM stroma transplantation allows us to formulate several key theses, which are most often given as reasons why stroma transplantation is impossible:
Nonspecific retention of MSCs in the lungs immediately after injection;
Absence of MSCs in the allogeneic recipient early after injection;
Absence of the mechanism of MSC homing to the BM;
Loss of MSC functions due to cell dissociation;
Absence of immune privileges of stromal cells in MSCs;
Further, we will consider experimental data on which these theses are based, and we will give data from modern research that show that the given statements are erroneous or, at least, can be questioned, and obstacles on the way to of MSC transplantation can be overcome.
3. Re-evaluation of basic statements about the non-transplantability of BM stroma
3.1 Nonspecific retention of MSCs in the lungs immediately after injection?
The statement that MSCs are nonspecifically retained in lung tissue is based on the studies in which BM mesenchymal cells were labeled with a radioisotope marker and then injected intravenously into the recipient, and their fate was monitored [9]. The authors observed that after intravenous injection of labeled cells, which in this study were cultured mesenchymal stromal cells (which we will abbreviate hereinafter as “MCs,” and not primary mesenchymal stem cells of BM existing
3.2 Absence of MSCs in the organism of an allogeneic recipient in the early terms after injection?
The idea that MSCs may not survive for a long time after administration is based on the data indicating that most MSCs become apoptotic after administration [17], as well as on the results of early studies on the biodistribution of MCs [9]. However, several groups of investigators have shown in different kinds of model animals that MCs can be detected for long periods of time (up to several months) in a wide range of tissues, including BM, after systemic administration, even despite prior
It can be concluded that at intravenous injection of pre-expanded
3.3 Lack of a mechanism for homing MSCs to BM?
An example of studies on which this statement is based is the article in which the arrest of MSCs in the lungs was shown [9]. In this study, the biodistribution of MSCs was monitored for 72 hours after intravenous injection of MSCs. At none of the investigated time points were injected MSCs detected in BM [9].
At the same time, by now there is a plenty of researches in which it is shown that intravenously injected stromal cells can, similarly to leukocytes, perform rolling and adhesion to vascular endothelial cells [26] and extravasate into various tissues, including BM, from the vascular channel through the basal membrane [27], although the number of cells migrating through the membrane is usually low [28]. In one of the already mentioned studies, the authors managed to detect eGFP-labeled cells in bones and BM of two recipients using PCR DNA ELISA analysis [19], and subsequently, the presence of MCs was detected in other organs and tissues, but using a more sensitive method [20]. The authors conclude that after intravenous infusion, MCs are predominantly localized in the BM, indicating the possibility of the existence of a mechanism of directed migration (homing) of these cells to the BM. Also, in another study, it was shown [29] that after intravenous injection of cells of stromal line GB1/6 to mice irradiated at doses of 3–8.5 Gy with additional irradiation of the right hind limb at a dose of 10–12.5 Gy, the injected cells were detected
Thus, both in animal models and in humans, it has been shown that after intravenous administration, stromal cells isolated from BM are capable of homing into their “native” BM niches, although with relatively low efficiency [28]. What limits the tropism and engraftment of MSCs in the BM remains not fully understood. There have been published papers showing the ability of cultured BM mesenchymal cells to migrate through the basal membrane and endothelial cell layer in model
Among chemokines and their corresponding receptors, the SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis is a thoroughly studied system [30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]. This axis is known to be central to the homing of HSCs to the BM when administered intravenously [38], regulating the migration and homing of CXCR4+ hematopoietic progenitor cells, pre-B lymphocytes, and T-lymphocytes [33, 34, 35, 39]. More recent evidence suggests that in addition to HSCs, functional CXCR4 is expressed on the surface of various types of tissue-specific stem cells, such as neuronal stem cells [40], skeletal muscle satellite cells [41], liver oval cells [42], primordial germ cells [43], and other stem cell types including Muse cells and VSELs [44, 45].
There has been considerable evidence to suggest that the SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis is important for the migration of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells isolated from various sources [36, 37, 46, 47] and, more importantly, determines their ability to home to BM after intravenous administration [48]. Interestingly, data from previous studies suggested that a small subpopulation of cultured MSCs/MMSCs/BM-MCs initially maintains CXCR4 expression on the cell surface [48, 49], but upon
Kyriakou et al. showed that despite low surface expression of CXCR4, human MSCs/MMSCs/BM-MCs migrated in response to SDF-1α
Enhanced survival and ability of MSCs to migrate
These prerequisites, namely the expression of CXCR4 in BM-MCs at basal level and its activation in response to hypoxia, the local increase in SDF1α levels under hypoxic conditions, which can occur as a consequence of ischemization or injury, are also physiological in BM [57], together with the ability of BM-MCs to accumulate
Thus, summarizing the presented data, we can conclude that the ability of MSCs to chemotaxis along gradients of SDF1α is well documented. This is primarily shown for the migration of MSCs to injury sites. Among other things, it has been shown that CXCR4 expression is increased on the surface of MSCs in response to several chemokines, including SDF-1α. Stromal cells have been shown to be able to migrate along the SDF-1α gradient and penetrate the endothelial barrier in the BM from peripheral blood. At the same time, the efficiency of MSCs homing into BM is usually low, which is associated by researchers with a low level of expression of receptors to chemokines on the surface of primary, uncultured MSCs; an even greater decrease of expression of these receptors during
3.4 Loss of MSC functions due to cell dissociation?
One of the significant arguments that can be heard in favor of the view that transplantation of BM stroma is impossible is the notion that MSCs lose their functional abilities to regenerate stromal tissue after dissociation of intercellular contacts and transformation of BM into a single-cell suspension before intravenous administration to the recipient. The conclusion that stromal cells are not capable of transplantation in the form of a single-cell suspension was made by several independent, authoritative researchers in the 70–80s of the twentieth century who conducted experiments on animals. In similar studies by Ivanov-Smolensky and Friedenstein, BM explants from (CBA x C57BL/6)F1 mice were used to investigate this issue. F1 mice were lethally irradiated at a dose of 11 Gy and reconstituted with BM from CBA mice, and BM explants were obtained from the recipients. Colonies of fibroblasts grew from the explants, which, judging by isoantigens in the indirect immunofluorescence reaction with anti-C57BL/6 serum, were of recipient origin [58, 59]. The same conclusion about the impossibility of stroma transplantation was made by Chertkov [60, 61]. In 1983 the authors demonstrated that if BM is explanted in culture as a whole fragment without cell separation and then the stromal sublayer is collected and transplanted under the kidney capsule, an ectopic focus of hematopoiesis is formed in the implantation site, i.e., MSCs fulfill their function and build a full-fledged hematopoietic microenvironment [60]. However, if BM is transformed into a single-cell suspension before explanting into the culture, the cellular composition of the stromal sublayer of the culture is quite different, and, most importantly, when it is implanted under the kidney capsule of the recipient mouse kidney, a focus of ectopic hematopoiesis is not formed, i.e., the function of MSCs is lost due to the preliminary dissociation of cells. Then, 2 years later, following a largely similar scheme to the experiments of Ivanov-Smolensky et al. [59], Chertkov et al. studied the cells of the stromal sublayer of LTBMCs from the BM of radiation chimeras, which were obtained by irradiating mice with a lethal dose of radiation and reconstituting hematopoiesis by intravenous injection of donor syngeneic or allogeneic BM in the form of a single-cell suspension [61]. The origin of stromal cells in the LTBMCs of chimeric BM was studied using double fluorochrome staining with mouse lineage-specific antiserums. It was shown that the plastic-adherent cells of the LTBMCs of allogeneic chimeras contained only recipient stromal progenitor cells. The authors concluded that stromal progenitor cells cannot be transplanted intravenously in mice.
It is interesting to note that J. Chertkov and A. Friedenstein published the results of their other experiments, in which the strength of the basis of the hypothesis put forward is questionable. Thus, for example, in the same issue of Experimental Hematology, I.L. Chertkov publishes another article [62], in which a similar experiment of forming the foci of ectopic hematopoiesis from a whole fragment of BM and from a single-cell suspension of BM, which was pelleted by centrifugation on a small fragment of a filter, was conducted. The difference between this study and the study described above by the same authors was that in the latter study, the stage of seeding the BM cells in culture was omitted. In this arrangement of the experiment, foci of ectopic hematopoiesis were formed in both cases. To the surprise of the authors, the dissociation of BM cells not only failed to prevent the formation of foci, but other way round the proportion of donor cells in such foci was increased. Also, Friedenstein published a study in which it was shown that transplantation of fibroblasts in the form of a suspension under the kidney capsule led to the formation of elements of BM stroma, including bone, and to the presence of hematopoietic cells in the implants, which indicated that dissociation of cells in these experiments still did not lead to a complete loss of MSC function [63].
The statement that MSCs lose their functions after dissociation of intercellular contacts directly contradicts later studies, where it was shown that MSCs are able to migrate in the organism to the microenvironment of solid tumors and to the site of inflammation [64, 65, 66]. For example, MSCs have been shown to be selectively recruited to injured or inflamed tissues due to the release of multiple inflammatory factors by injured tissues [67]. This process, in particular, is essential for the resolution of infection and bone regeneration. The ability of MSCs to migrate is increased during acute inflammation, a process associated with the release of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and activation of the NF-κB pathway [68, 69]. It is known that MSCs migrate from the BM to the gastric cancer microenvironment [70]. Thus, MSCs or some of their descendants are able to move around the organism as separate cells, accumulate in inflamed or damaged tissues, and actively participate in regeneration processes. Consequently, dissociation of BM cells before their administration to the recipient does not necessarily mean the cessation or decrease of MSC functionality.
3.5 Lack of immune privileges for MSCs?
The question of immune privileges (IPs) of MSCs and other stromal progenitor cells has a long history of study.
However, it was subsequently found that pre-cultured BM-MCs do not possess immune privileges, and their main part causes immune responses in the organism and is eliminated by the immune system in MHC-incompatible transplantation [77, 78]. However, even in the case of cultured cells, the possibility that among the total cell population, there is a rare population of cells still possessing IPs cannot be excluded. Indeed, compelling experimental evidence for IPs of BM-MCs
Long-term presence of donor BM stromal cells in the body of recipients after alloHSCT has been demonstrated: in the already mentioned study of the ability of BM-MCs to home to BM in primates, in addition to autoBMT, MHC-incompatible allogeneic combined infusion of HSCs and genetically labeled BM-MCs was performed [19]. It was shown that markers of donor MCs were detectable in the BM up to +76 days. The same authors published another study on primates, in which they injected autologous GFP-labeled MSCs into a baboon previously lethally irradiated and recovered by its own hematopoietic cells mobilized into PB before irradiation and a baboon that had not been irradiated or exposed to any cytotoxic therapy [20]. MSCs expressing immunogenic protein GFP persisted in the recipient’s organism for several months (up to 21 months) without being eradicated by the immune system of the organism [20]. For human allogeneic MSCs, their long-term (for several months) presence in the BM of a recipient allogeneic to the donor after intraosseous injection of a suspension of donor MSCs has been demonstrated [79, 80].
The IPs of MSCs have proven to be so strong that they allow these cells to survive in a xenogeneic organism. One study demonstrated the presence of xenogeneic human MSCs in the BM of immunodeficient (nude) mice for several months after intravenous infusion [23]. In another study, the authors transplanted a well-characterized population of human MSCs to sheep embryos at the early stages of pregnancy, before and after the expected development of immunological competence [81]. In this xenogeneic system, human MCs engrafted and persisted in various tissues for 13 months after transplantation. The transplanted human cells underwent site-specific differentiation into chondrocytes, adipocytes, myocytes, cardiomyocytes, BM stromal cells, and thymus stroma. Long-term engraftment was unexpectedly recorded even when cells were transplanted after the development of immunocompetence.
Recently, it was shown that MSCs have pronounced IPs
Thus, it can be concluded that in mammalian BM, there are one or more distinct cell populations that have IPs and can be successfully transplanted to an MHC-compatible or incompatible recipient and survive in their body despite an active immune system.
If we think about stroma transplantation in patients as a component of alloBMT, we can assume that the probability of survival of these cells is much higher than in other settings, because at the moment of infusion of donor cells and for a certain period of time after it, the patient is in deep agranulocytosis, and the activity of the remaining circulating T-lymphocytes of the recipient is significantly reduced. Humoral immune response to MSCs and their differentiating progeny is also unlikely in such a situation. If combined transplantation of MSCs and HSCs is successful, the recipient becomes a “chimera:” his hematopoiesis and immune system become donor and, consequently, syngeneic with injected MCs, so there is no reason for a systemic immune response to injected donor MCs. However, local immune reactions presumably can be observed due to the preserved resident macrophages of the recipient residing in organs and tissues and residual circulating T-lymphocytes.
It can be concluded that for today there are reliable and numerous experimental confirmations that at intravenous injection of whole BM cell suspension containing true multipotent, not subjected to pre-cultivation MSCs, the latter are able to survive for a long time in the recipient’s organism, migrate into BM using specialized molecular mechanisms, and perform their direct function—to participate in regeneration and maintenance of BM stromal tissue.
4. New concept of bone marrow transplantation that includes a change of both stromal and hematopoietic components to donor origin
At the same time, there were studies that testified in favor of the fact that transplantation of elements of the stromal component of BM is still possible. This was demonstrated by independent teams of researchers for small mammals (mice), large mammals (primates, dogs), and humans [13, 28, 29, 55, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91].
MSCs are an integral component of BM stroma and can be considered its key element. Such perception of MSCs is generally accepted because these cells are capable of
the ability of donor allogeneic MSCs to survive in the recipient’s body for a long period of time; and in the recipient’s body [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24];
the ability of intravenously injected MSCs to repopulate the BM due to specialized molecular mechanisms [19, 27];
the ability of MSCs to maintain their functionality (to differentiate in the osteogenic direction and proliferation) after their dissociation and intravenous injection in the form of a single-cell suspension into the recipient’s body [55];
immune privileges of MSCs, i.e., their ability to survive despite the recipient’s immune system being activated against their antigens [82, 83];
This creates a fundamental basis for the development of protocols for effective MSC transplantation and BM stroma replacement in patients with hematologic diseases, including oncology, as well as in patients with skeletal diseases, including genetic diseases. Successful BM stroma transplantation also has the potential to improve the effectiveness of treatment of diseases associated with dysfunction of bone, fat, and cartilage tissue [1, 2, 92]. However, given the failure of numerous studies of BM stroma transplantation attempts described above, what might be the key to success?
Many researchers note the ability of MSCs to migrate to the areas of ischemic and injured tissues, but none of the reviewed studies, in particular in the field of hematology, proposes to increase the efficiency of homing and engraftment of MSCs into the recipient’s BM during alloBMT by targeted and intentional damage of BM stromal tissue before infusion of donor BM. Meanwhile, it can be one of the reasonable tactics, since the function of MSCs is to regenerate the damaged tissue, first of all, the stromal tissue.
I present here a new concept of BM transplantation that includes transplantation of both MSCs and HSCs from the same donor, where transplantation means not only injection of cells but also their stable engraftment and participation in regeneration and maintenance of the corresponding tissue. The central idea of this concept is the necessity of sufficient damage to the BM stroma in the recipient before BM graft infusion. There are preclinical studies that suggest MSCs may constitute a powerful means of treating tissue lesions caused by ionizing radiation, either after accidental exposure to radioactivity or as a side effect of clinical radiotherapy. Animal studies and early clinical experiences suggest a role for MSCs in the regeneration of these tissue lesions, both by differentiating into functional parenchymal cells and by creating a nurturing microenvironment for other cells [96]. We have our own experimental data demonstrating that prior severe damage to the recipient BM stroma is a necessary condition of effective and lasting engraftment of donor MSCs. However, more research is needed to fully reveal the regenerative potential of MSCs in the BM [97].
4.1 The strategy
This alternative concept consists of the following key steps/stages (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
The main steps of the alternative strategy for sequential co-transplantation of BM stroma and HSCs.
A hypothetical timeline for the four-step protocol is as follows. Eradication of BM stroma could be done after induction therapy and simultaneously with consolidation chemotherapy. Infusion of donor MSCs should be done in advance, for example, at day-14, in order to give the cells some time to home to the BM, engraft, and reconstitute BM stroma. Infusion of HSCs on day 0. Supportive and regenerative therapy for at least 3 months after HSCs infusion. This timeline is speculative and theoretical; a real-time course should be established in future experiments.
The first step is “Eradication of the recipient’s BM stroma.” The goal of this step is to eradicate the host’s MSCs in the BM and/or significantly damage the patient’s BM stroma. This is necessary so that the donor MSCs, which will be injected into the recipient at the next step, would get into the organism in which the function of the BM stroma is lost/damaged and, reacting to this, carry out their direct duty—to regenerate the lost/damaged tissue. A direct analogy can be made here with alloHSCT. This procedure is aimed not only at the elimination of tumor cells but also at almost complete destruction of the patient’s own hematopoiesis, including his immune system, as well as emptying hematopoietic niches in the BM. Destruction of the immune system and emptying of hematopoietic niches create favorable conditions for the introduced donor’s HSCs to engraft by populating empty niches without experiencing pressure from the recipient’s immunity, activating their regenerative program, and fully restoring hematopoiesis. It is likely that successful engraftment of donor HSCs and reconstitution of hematopoiesis is not in the least due to the fact that HSCs enter the body with the lost/damaged hematopoietic tissue and activate their regenerative function to replenish it. At this step, various strategies and approaches can be used, the detailed development of which is still to come. One such approach is nonspecific stromal damage by radiation or polychemotherapy (PCT). Several studies that have demonstrated successful engraftment of the donor’s stroma have used high doses of radiation [29, 89], so in principle, this approach is feasible. However, it should be remembered that stromal cells are much more resistant to ionizing radiation [96, 98] than hematopoietic cells. This means that if ionizing radiation is considered as a factor capable of damaging MSCs and applied as TBI, it may require too high doses of radiation to effectively suppress the stromal component of BM. The side effects of using such doses may be acute radiation sickness, high cytotoxicity, and the occurrence of secondary tumors. It is doubtful that in the case of TBI it will be possible to achieve doses that would, on the one hand, lead to destruction of BM stroma or at least MSCs within the stroma and, on the other hand, be acceptable in terms of toxicity/complications profile. Radiation therapy is actively developing, and methods of precision irradiation of cells with a precision of up to 1 millimeter are available today, which is a promising alternative to TBI. The development of 3D-4D conformal radiation therapy approaches, such as CyberKnife radiosurgery technology, which is used for radiosurgical treatment of solid tumors, primarily brain tumors and vascular malformations, has become more accessible nowadays. This technology allows irradiation of areas with an accuracy of less than a millimeter and, importantly, affords continuous tracking of the target position and correction of the course of irradiation when the target shifts with respiration or when the patient moves intentionally or not. This makes it possible to selectively and precisely apply ionizing radiation to all areas where BM is concentrated—bones of the skull, ribs, spine, pelvis, and epiphyses of limb bones. Another method of stromal eradication may be the administration of chemotherapeutic drugs that have a cytotoxic effect on stromal cells. It is difficult to think of any significant selectivity with respect to them, although it can be assumed that those drugs used for the treatment of malignant bone tumors and, in particular, osteosarcomas—tumors arising from osteoblasts—may be more effective here than other substances [99]. These drugs include cisplatin, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, etoposide, epirubicin, and methotrexate [100]. This list is certainly not exhaustive; additional information can be drawn from the Russian national clinical guidelines for the treatment of malignant bone tumors or the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) national clinical cancer guidelines [100]. Other chemotherapeutic agents with distinct effects on stromal cells can be selected in functional tests on stromal cell lines (e.g., OP-9) [101, 102], fibroblasts [103], or on primary cultures of BM-derived MMSCs, adipose tissue, or other sources [104], although it is most appropriate to test drugs specifically on primary, previously uncultured BM stromal cells, since this tissue is the therapeutic target in this case, and cultured MSCs isolated from different sources other than BM vary in their ability to proliferate, differentiate, migrate, and secrete extracellular matrix, which may result in different sensitivity to the drugs being tested [105], and cell culturing itself leads to changes in cell characteristics, as mentioned above. It is also worth noting that the tumor microenvironment (TME) is currently the focus of attention of oncologists and oncology researchers, and there are actively developing therapeutic approaches that target TME. Tumor-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are one of the significant components of TME, and attempts are being made to targetedly eradicate these cells in order to improve the effectiveness of the treatment of primary and metastasizing solid tumors [106]. The most effective drugs, which were discovered in these studies, can be considered as promising candidates for the eradication of BM stromal cells within the proposed new approach to alloBMT and treatment of stromal tissue diseases. Another therapeutic tactic for stromal eradication may be targeting certain cell subpopulations, in particular, MSCs in BM or their differentiated progeny involved in niches for HSCs, such as osteoblasts. Such tactics require knowledge about the surface markers specific to these cells. Unfortunately, to date, there is no unambiguous opinion on the surface immunophenotype of BM MSCs: different researchers mention different surface markers and believe that cells expressing them satisfy the definition of MSCs. Some authors argue that MSCs are cells expressing Lepr and Cxcl12 [107]. It has also been shown that the population of stem/progenitor mesenchymal cells in BM is significantly enriched in a subpopulation of CD271+ cells [108, 109]. Other researchers consider MSCs to be pericytes characterized by the expression of smooth muscle α-actin (Acta2) [107, 110]. Finally, CD45−Nes+ cells are considered MSCs [93]. They are exclusively located along BM arterioles and are a component of hematopoietic niches that regulate the quiescent state of HSCs [111]. The mentioned subpopulations can partially overlap with each other [111], but the ability to transfer hematopoietic activity in vivo has been clearly demonstrated so far only for Nes+ MSCs [93]. In addition, previously described Muse cells are characterized as SSEA3+ cells [112], and VSEL cells are described as Sca1+CXCR4+SSEA1+lin−CD45− [14]. By definition, MSCs are capable of differentiating in at least three classical directions: osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic. This ability ensures the formation and maintenance of the basic cellular elements of the BM stroma. As a result of MSC differentiation in the osteogenic direction, osteoblast-osteocyte precursors are formed, the main function of which is the formation of new bone tissue due to active secretion of extracellular matrix substances. Some studies claim that osteoblasts are direct participants of niches for HSCs and their progeny in the BM [113, 114, 115]. Considering the important role of osteoblasts in HSC maintenance, a special term, “osteoblastic niche” of HSCs, was even introduced. However, it should be noted that in a number of papers, authors have disputed the importance of osteoblasts in HSC maintenance [116]. Osteoblasts are exclusively present in BM, lining the inner surface of bone. Osteoblasts are characterized by the expression of the surface membrane proteins CD10 [117], CD44 [118], CD46, CD55, and CD59 [119], as well as the recently discovered A7 antigen, which has strong specificity [120]. There is reason to suggest that osteoblasts are a favorable target for chemotherapy aimed at damaging the stroma as part of the preparatory step before its transplantation, because osteoblasts express a number of soluble extracellular matrix proteins, such as osteocalcin, osteopontin, procollagen, procollagen peptidase, and bone sialoprotein. The content of these proteins can be measured in peripheral blood, and their levels can serve to assess the efficiency of osteoblast destruction along with soluble forms of the osteoblast surface antigens described above. Moreover, since osteoblasts are present specifically in bones, while MSCs are distributed throughout the body, this makes the former a more specific target, and their destruction, presumably, may have fewer undesirable side effects on the body than the destruction of MSCs. Thus, targeted chemotherapy can be directed at osteoblasts either separately or in addition to targeted therapy directed at MSCs. The arsenal of methods for targeting specific cell types is currently quite wide and includes not only chemical agents but also various types of antibodies (monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and mini-antibodies conjugated to a cytostatic agent) [121, 122], and T-lymphocytes or NK cells with a chimeric T cell receptor (CAR-T, CAR-NT cells, respectively) engineered to specifically recognize a particular target [123, 124, 125, 126]. Such CAR-T or CAR-NT cells can be generated against a single target in a cell population selected for exposure. CAR-T and CAR-NT cells can be used in cocktails for a more efficient cytotoxic effect against a selected cell subpopulation [127].
Various combinations of nonspecific and targeted drugs directed at different types of target cells and at different antigens on the surface of these cells are possible. This part requires detailed development in preclinical studies.
Theoretically, such a strategy can radically transform the schemes of induction and consolidation therapy before alloBMT: such schemes and regimens can be developed that will be primarily directed not so much at hematopoietic, tumor, and immune cells but at BM stroma. No niches for HSCs—no hematopoiesis and no leukemia. At the same time, it is likely that PCT regimens will retain drugs aimed at reducing the total mass of leukemia cells in the blood/BM in order to reduce the negative impact of these cells on the body. An additional option for promising regimens may be to affect T regulatory cell (Treg) populations in the recipient, as it is these cells, together with MSCs, that confer immune privileges to HSCs in the BM, keeping the latter dormant, and thus may contribute to the persistence of leukemia stem cells in the BM [128, 129]. On the other hand, Tregs may affect the manifestation and severity of GVHD [130], so a balance between benefit and risk must be maintained when targeting Tregs.
The second step of the proposed concept is “Preparing the foothold,” which is an infusion of donor whole BM cell suspension or selected subpopulations of MSCs. The aim of this stage is to repopulate the vacant BM territory with donor MSCs so that they begin to recreate the hematopoietic microenvironment in the BM and build niches for HSCs. It is important to emphasize that the aim of this stage is not to reconstitute hematopoiesis at the expense of donor hematopoietic cells. The efficiency of engraftment of donor HSCs and, as a consequence, donor chimerism of hematopoietic tissue will be low due to the fact that at this time point in the recipient’s body, there will be significantly damaged or destroyed niches for them. Consequently, at this stage, not the whole BM but only its stromal component or separate stromal cell subpopulations, in particular, MSCs, if it is possible to isolate them in any way, are feasible to be infused. On the other hand, infusion of whole BM implies infusion of various subpopulations of immune cells, which may support the recipient’s immunity for some time at the expense of granulocytes and memory lymphocytes.
The third stage is “Airborne.” This stage consists of the infusion of donor HSCs, as is currently done in alloHSCT. This (second) infusion should probably be performed some time (what time, it is to be determined) after the first one so that MSCs have time to build new niches for HSCs. This will allow the HSCs to inhabit the niches/territories recreated for them and engraft effectively. Probably due to the fact that the stroma recovery may not be complete or the efficiency of its transplantation will not be too high, it will be necessary to adjust the therapeutic doses of CD34+ cells administered to the recipient toward their increase.
The fourth stage is “Support/Supply Pathway Establishment.” Damaging the BM stroma can have serious negative consequences for the patient’s body. The injected donor MSCs may not be able to cope effectively with the task of building a new hematopoietic territory throughout the body. They may need support. What kind of support is the best, should be subject of further research. It could be supportive infusions of CAR-MSCs, which have pronounced homing ability to BM and significant immune modulatory effects [131, 132], or agents that stimulate regeneration of nerves in the BM [133], or chemotherapeutic agents used for prophylaxis and treatment of GVHD.
At each of these stages, it is advisable to utilize factors that can increase the efficiency of BM stromal transplantation; their combined application can result in a significantly increased likelihood of high-quality, stable, complete BM stromal transplantation. These factors may include effective eradication of the recipient BM stroma. It has been shown that irradiation of an animal with ionizing radiation or exposure to another DNA-toxic agent, such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or cyclophosphamide (Cy), leads to increased expression of SDF-1 in the BM [54]. The ability of BM-MCs to migrate along the SDF1a gradient was experimentally demonstrated [30]. Together with overexpression of CXCR4 on BM-MCs, it could facilitate the engraftment of injected cells [52]. Another factor that can increase the efficiency of MSC transplantation is the introduction of an increased amount of these cells. In those studies, in which it was possible to demonstrate long-term presence of donor stromal cells in the recipient’s organism, the authors attributed the success to the increased dose of injected cells [28, 55, 89, 90]. Another factor that is likely to be significant in the engraftment of stromal cells is the use of vasodilators. It has been shown that intravenous injection of rat BM-MCs after vasodilator administration increased the efficiency of accumulation of radioactive label embedded in the cells by 50% compared to a group that was not injected with a vasodilator [21]. Finally, after infusion of mesenchymal cells into the recipient, it is advisable to consider supportive therapy that will promote engraftment of the injected cells, their proliferation, and differentiation for complete reconstruction of the stromal component of the bone marrow. Many cytokines have a stimulatory effect on mesenchymal progenitor cells. For example, it has been shown that the basic fibroblast growth factor FGF2 stimulates the proliferation of BM-MCs and their differentiation into tenocytes [134]. Transforming growth factor beta (TGFb) takes part in adipogenic differentiation of MSCs [135]. Also, immunity factors have an important influence on MSCs. For example, it has been shown that interleukin-1 beta is a growth factor for stromal progenitor cells [136, 137], and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interferon gamma can influence the immunomodulatory properties of BM-MCs [138, 139]. It is reasonable to consider the possibility of supportive therapy aimed at the regeneration of BM stroma and hematopoiesis. Sensory neuronal signaling is known to modulate the functionality of MSCs and osteoclasts in BM [140]. It has been shown that active proliferation of tumor cells in BM in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has a deleterious and persistent effect on the sympathetic neuronal component of HSC niches in human BM, which can lead to long-term hematologic dysfunction [133].
4.2 Risks of the proposed strategy
Despite the considerations presented about the potential benefits of BM stroma transplantation, it is necessary to evaluate all possible risks to the patient and to ensure that the safety and clinical efficacy of this procedure are appropriate. The risks associated with the proposed procedure of MSC transplantation after prior eradication therapy are highlighted in this chapter. Given the need for high-dose radiation therapy and/or potential intensification of induction and consolidation protocols to achieve profound damage to the stromal component of the BM, the risks of secondary tumors, a higher incidence of infectious complications, and associated mortality as well as some other risks should be evaluated [141, 142, 143].
4.2.1 Risks associated with damage to the BM stroma and failure of donor MSC engraftment
Potential transplantation protocols will require approaches that would result in significant damage and possibly even the eradication of the recipient’s BM stroma. And if no engraftment of donor MSCs and regeneration of BM stroma follow, there will be no engraftment of hematopoietic tissue due to a lack of necessary niches for HSCs. This may result in extremely severe complications, long rehabilitation, and even a lethal outcome for the patient. There is also a risk of such undesirable phenomena as osteogenesis disorder with the formation of severe progressive osteoporosis (progressive bone loss). The risk of immune rejection of MSCs is another factor that should be addressed. To minimize these risks,
4.2.2 Risk associated with MSC-driven support of tumor cells
Tumor recurrence is one of the leading problems that arise after alloHSCT. Here, the risk of MSC application is connected with the fact that these donor cells can perform not only antitumor function and replace tumor-remodeled stroma with a healthy microenvironment but also get involved in the tumor microenvironment again, preserving and stimulating malignant cells [144, 145, 146]. Some effects exerted by MSCs may depend on the histological type of the tumor and its molecular characteristics, while others may be similar for different tumor types [147, 148]. For example, several studies have shown that MSCs exert antitumor effects on breast and lung cancer cell lines
This determines an important principle of using MSCs in clinical practice during their transplantation as a part of the strategy for joint sequential transplantation of BM stroma and hematopoietic tissue:
4.2.3 Spontaneous transformation of stromal cells in culture
The possibility of spontaneous transformation of mesenchymal cells themselves cannot be discounted. Intense
This allows for the formulation of one more principle of MSC use
4.2.4 Tumors from primary uncultured MSCs
It should also be kept in mind that tumors originating in the body from cells of mesenchymal nature are known, namely malignant tumors of bone, such as osteosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, fibrosarcoma of bone, and others [100]. These diseases are caused by different populations of BM stromal cells that are descendants of MSCs, such as osteoblasts in the case of osteosarcoma [173, 174]. The frequency of such tumors is relatively low, but still, before using MSCs and their derivatives for the purpose of their transplantation from a donor, it is necessary to have criteria that can confirm that normal, non-pathological cells are being injected.
4.2.5 Secondary tumors as a result of high-dose radiation therapy
It is known that radiation therapy carries the risk of developing not only acute radiation sickness but also secondary tumors [175, 176, 177]. In addition, mesenchymal cells and MSCs in particular are much more resistant to the effects of radiation than HSCs [98]. Therefore, the use of TBI to damage MSCs would be associated with high doses that would be necessary to achieve the desired effect, and this in turn is associated with high toxicity and the likelihood of secondary tumor development. Therefore, this approach appears to be ineffective. To overcome these difficulties and increase the efficacy and safety of MSC eradication in the recipient,
4.2.6 MSCs as potential carriers of infections
Another aspect that should be considered when using MSCs in clinical practice is the possibility of their infection by various pathogens. It is known that part of MSCs
Summarizing the data presented in this section, it can be stated that the use of BM-MCs and MSCs in clinical practice is associated with a number of significant risks. These risks can be minimized by using primary MSCs that have not undergone
5. Conclusion
Science, and medical science in particular, is not only the expansion of knowledge about the world and, in particular, about the principles of functioning of the human body and other living beings, but also the narrowing of the realm of the impossible. What was considered impossible a few decades ago is now becoming not only achievable but even routine. Those diseases that were considered incurable are gradually losing their status. The successes of surgery, transplantology, and other branches of medicine are vivid examples of this. In my opinion, now it is time to raise the question of whether the combined transplantation of BM stromal and hematopoietic tissue for the purpose of therapy of malignant and non-malignant diseases of the blood system and skeletal diseases is really impossible. A lot of studies performed on various animal species and on humans show that all major fundamental obstacles for this are absent. For example, it was shown that MSCs are able to retain their functionality after intravenous injection in the form of single-cell suspension into the recipient’s body, have a specialized molecular mechanism of homing into the BM, and are able not only to survive but also to divide and differentiate in the necessary stromal directions in the recipient’s BM. The main problem at present remains the extremely low efficiency of engraftment of donor mesenchymal cells, and its solution will open the way for fundamentally new schemes of therapy of the abovementioned diseases. In my opinion, one of the possible solutions here is preliminary destruction or significant damage of the recipient’s BM stroma, which is necessary to activate the regenerative potential of the injected stem cells, as well as the use of uncultured true MSCs or more universal stem cells for transplantation, the presence of which in the mammalian organisms has been recently shown. Obviously, this approach carries many potential risks. What is the risk of targeted destruction of stem cells that maintain stromal tissues? Or what are the consequences of the destruction of osteoblasts responsible for bone regeneration and maintenance of HSCs? To what extent will this aggravate the situation of a patient who has also had his own hematopoiesis and immune system destroyed as part of induction and consolidation therapy before alloBMT? Are there any immunological risks? These questions must be answered in many, many experimental animal studies. Some risks can be considered to be low. For example, since a patient is in deep agranulocytosis before infusion of donor cells of alloBMT and because MSCs have immune privileges, the probability that infused MSCs or their differentiated progeny will be rejected seems to be rather low. Some risks are indeed high, for example, the risk of low efficiency of MSCs engraftment to the BM. Although if one thinks about alloBMT, it could also be considered a wild idea: the deliberate destruction of the entire hematopoiesis along with the immune system. It would seem to be incompatible with life. Nevertheless, today tens of thousands of people all over the world undergo this procedure, and many take undoubted risks for the sake of a clear goal—to get rid of deadly cancer and no less dangerous other diseases. And it often succeeds! So, for all the potential risks and difficulties, the emerging benefits of the proposed approach to combined stromal and hematopoietic transplantation seem as attractive as the devastating consequences. It will reduce the incidence of BM graft failure, leukemia and lymphoma relapses, and refractory courses of these diseases, and thus help save many lives. There is a long road ahead, but the one who walks it will conquer it.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my teacher, Nina Drize, for the development of the ability to think critically, without which the birth of these ideas would not have been possible. I express my heartfelt gratitude to my colleagues who participated in writing this chapter, discussing the ideas presented here, searching for sources of information, and providing support while working on this text. My heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for their continuous support and understanding during the long work on the manuscript. The study was conducted under the state assignment of Lomonosov Moscow State University.
References
- 1.
Horwitz EM, Prockop DJ, Gordon PL, Koo WWK, Fitzpatrick LA, Neel MD, et al. Clinical responses to bone marrow transplantation in children with severe osteogenesis imperfecta. Blood. 2001; 97 :1227-1231 - 2.
Horwitz EM, Le Blanc K, Dominici M, Mueller I, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Marini FC, et al. Clarification of the nomenclature for MSC: The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy. 2005; 7 :393-395 - 3.
Horwitz EM, Prockop DJ, Fitzpatrick LA, Koo WWK, Gordon PL, Neel M, et al. Transplantability and therapeutic effects of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal cells in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. Nature Medicine. 1999; 5 :309-313 - 4.
Golde DW, Hocking WG, Quan SG, Sparkes RS, Gale RP. Origin of human bone marrow fibroblasts. British Journal of Haematology. 1980; 44 :183-187 - 5.
Laver J, Jhanwar S, O’Reilly R, Castro-Malaspina H. Host origin of the human hematopoietic microenvironment following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Blood. 1987; 70 :1966-1968 - 6.
Simmons PJ, Przepiorka D, Thomas ED, Torok-Storb B. Host origin of marrow stromal cells following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Nature. 1987; 328 :429-432 - 7.
Bentley S, Knutsen T, Whang-Peng J. The origin of the hematopoietic microenvironment in continuous bone marrow culture. Experimental Hematology. 1982; 10 :367-372 - 8.
Athanasou NA, Quinn J, Brenner MK, Prentice HG, Graham A, Taylor S, et al. Origin of marrow stromal cells and haemopoietic chimaerism following bone marrow transplantation determined by in situ hybridisation. British Journal of Cancer. 1990; 61 :385-389 - 9.
Eggenhofer E, Benseler V, Kroemer A, Popp FC, Geissler EK, Schlitt HJ, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells are short-lived and do not migrate beyond the lungs after intravenous infusion. Frontiers in Immunology. 2012; 3 :1-8 - 10.
Eggenhofer E, Luk F, Dahlke MH, Hoogduijn MJ. The life and fate of mesenchymal stem cells. Frontiers in Immunology. 2014; 5 :1-6 - 11.
Colter DC, Class R, DiGirolamo CM, Prockop DJ. Rapid expansion of recycling stem cells in cultures of plastic-adherent cells from human bone marrow. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2000; 97 :3213-3218 - 12.
Schrepfer S, Deuse T, Reichenspurner H, Fischbein MP, Robbins RC, Pelletier MP. Stem cell transplantation: The lung barrier. Transplantation Proceedings. 2007; 39 :573-576 - 13.
Rombouts WJC, Ploemacher RE. Primary murine MSC show highly efficient homing to the bone marrow but lose homing ability following culture. Leukemia. 2003; 17 :160-170 - 14.
Kucia M, Reca R, Campbell FR, Zuba-Surma E, Majka M, Ratajczak J, et al. A population of very small embryonic-like (VSEL) CXCR4(+)SSEA-1(+)Oct-4+ stem cells identified in adult bone marrow. Leukemia. 2006; 20 :857-869 - 15.
Abouzaripour M, Kashani IR, Pasbakhsh P, Atlasy N. Intravenous transplantation of very small embryonic like stem cells in treatment of diabetes mellitus. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology. 2015; 7 :22 - 16.
Virant-klun I, Skerl P, Novakovic S, Vrtacnik-bokal E, Smrkolj S. Similar population of cd133+ and ddx4+ vsel-like stem cells sorted from human embryonic stem cell, ovarian, and ovarian cancer ascites cell cultures: The real embryonic stem cells? Cells. 11 Jul 2019; 8 (7):706. DOI: 10.3390/cells8070706 - 17.
Liu XB, Chen H, Chen HQ, Zhu MF, Hu XY, Wang YP, et al. Angiopoietin-1 preconditioning enhances survival and functional recovery of mesenchymal stem cell transplantation. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B. 2012; 13 :616-623 - 18.
Pereira RF, Halford KW, O’Hara MD, Leeper DB, Sokolov BP, Pollard MD, et al. Cultured adherent cells from marrow can serve as long-lasting precursor cells for bone, cartilage, and lung in irradiated mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1995; 92 :4857 - 19.
Devine SM, Bartholomew AM, Mahmud N, Nelson M, Patil S, Hardy W, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells are capable of homing to the bone marrow of non-human primates following systemic infusion. Experimental Hematology. 2001; 29 :244-255 - 20.
Devine SM, Cobbs C, Jennings M, Bartholomew A, Hoffman R. Mesenchymal stem cells distribute to a wide range of tissues following systemic infusion into nonhuman primates. Blood. 2003; 101 :2999-3001 - 21.
Gao J, Dennis JE, Muzic RF, Lundberg M, Caplan AI. The dynamic in vivo distribution of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells after infusion. Cells, Tissues, Organs. 2001; 169 :12-20 - 22.
Erices AA, Allers CI, Conget PA, Rojas CV, Minguell JJ. Human cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells home and survive in the marrow of immunodeficient mice after systemic infusion. Cell Transplantation. 2003; 12 :555-561 - 23.
Allers C, Sierralta WD, Neubauer S, Rivera F, Minguell JJ, Conget PA. Dynamic of distribution of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells after transplantation into adult unconditioned mice. Transplantation. 2004; 78 :503-508 - 24.
Bensidhoum M, Chapel A, Francois S, Demarquay C, Mazurier C, Fouillard L, et al. Homing of in vitro expanded Stro-1- or Stro-1+ human mesenchymal stem cells into the NOD/SCID mouse and their role in supporting human CD34 cell engraftment. Blood. 2004; 103 :3313-3319 - 25.
Sanchez-Diaz M, Quiñones-Vico MI, de la Torre RS, Montero-Vílchez T, Sierra-Sánchez A, Molina-Leyva A, et al. Biodistribution of mesenchymal stromal cells after administration in animal models and humans: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 29 Jun 2021; 10 (13):2925 - 26.
Rüster B, Göttig S, Ludwig RJ, Bistrian R, Müller S, Seifried E, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells display coordinated rolling and adhesion behavior on endothelial cells. Blood. 2006; 108 :3938-3944 - 27.
De Becker A, Van Hummelen P, Bakkus M, Broek IV, De Wever J, De Waele M, et al. Migration of culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells through bone marrow endothelium is regulated by matrix metalloproteinase-2 and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-3. Haematologica. 2007; 92 :440-449 - 28.
Cilloni D, Carlo-Stella C, Falzetti F, Sammarelli G, Regazzi E, Colla S, et al. Limited engraftment capacity of bone marrow–derived mesenchymal cells following T-cell–depleted hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2000; 96 :3637-3643 - 29.
Anklesaria P, Kase K, Glowacki J, Holland CA, Sakakeeny MA, Wright JA, et al. Engraftment of a clonal bone marrow stromal cell line in vivo stimulates hematopoietic recovery from total body irradiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1987; 84 :7681-7685 - 30.
Yu Q, Liu L, Lin J, Wang Y, Xuan X, Guo Y, et al. SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis mediates the migration of mesenchymal stem cells to the hypoxic-ischemic brain lesion in a rat model. Cell Journal. 2015; 16 :440-447 - 31.
Barbash IM, Chouraqui P, Baron J, Feinberg MS, Etzion S, Tessone A, et al. Systemic delivery of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells to the infarcted myocardium: Feasibility, cell migration, and body distribution. Circulation. 2003; 108 :863-868 - 32.
Ji JF, He BP, Dheen ST, Tay SSW. Interactions of chemokines and chemokine receptors mediate the migration of mesenchymal stem cells to the impaired site in the brain after hypoglossal nerve injury. Stem Cells. 2004; 22 :415-427 - 33.
Aiuti A, Webb IJ, Bleul C, Springer T, Gutierrez-Ramos JC. The chemokine SDF-1 is a chemoattractant for human CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells and provides a new mechanism to explain the mobilization of CD34+ progenitors to peripheral blood. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. 1997; 185 :111-120 - 34.
Ma Q, Jones D, Borghesani PR, Segal RA, Nagasawa T, Kismimoto T, et al. Impaired B-lymphopoiesis, myelopoiesis, and derailed cerebellar neuron migration in CXCR4- and SDF-1-deficient mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1998; 95 :9448-9453 - 35.
Kim CH, Broxmeyer HE. Chemokines: Signal lamps for trafficking of T and B cells for development and effector function. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 1999; 65 :6-15 - 36.
Cho HH, Kyoung KM, Seo MJ, Kim YJ, Bae YC, Jung JS. Overexpression of CXCR4 increases migration and proliferation of human adipose tissue stromal cells. Stem Cells and Development. 2006; 15 :853-864 - 37.
Wu Y, Zhao RCH. The role of chemokines in mesenchymal stem cell homing to myocardium. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports. 2012; 8 :243-250 - 38.
Peled A, Petit I, Kollet O, Magid M, Ponomaryov T, Byk T, et al. Dependence of human stem cell engraftment and repopulation of NOD/SCID mice on CXCR4. Science. 1999; 283 :845-848 - 39.
Nagasawa T, Hirota S, Tachibana K, Takakura N, Nishikawa SI, Kitamura Y, et al. Defects of B-cell lymphopoiesis and bone-marrow myelopoiesis in mice lacking the CXC chemokine PBSF/SDF-1. Nature. 1996; 382 :635-638 - 40.
Lazarini F, Tham TN, Casanova P, Arenzana-Seisdedos F, Dubois-Dalcq M. Role of the alpha-chemokine stromal cell-derived factor (SDF-1) in the developing and mature central nervous system. Glia. 2003; 42 :139-148 - 41.
Ratajczak MZ, Majka M, Kucia M, Drukala J, Pietrzkowski Z, Peiper S, et al. Expression of functional CXCR4 by muscle satellite cells and secretion of SDF-1 by muscle-derived fibroblasts is associated with the presence of both muscle progenitors in bone marrow and hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells in muscles. Stem Cells. 2003; 21 :363-371 - 42.
Hatch HM, Zheng D, Jorgensen ML, Petersen BE. SDF-1alpha/CXCR4: A mechanism for hepatic oval cell activation and bone marrow stem cell recruitment to the injured liver of rats. Cloning and Stem Cells. 2002; 4 :339-351 - 43.
Ara T, Nakamura Y, Egawa T, Sugiyama T, Abe K, Kishimoto T, et al. Impaired colonization of the gonads by primordial germ cells in mice lacking a chemokine, stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003; 100 :5319-5323 - 44.
Wojakowski W, Tendera M, Michałowska A, Majka M, Kucia M, Maślankiewicz K, et al. Mobilization of CD34/CXCR4+, CD34/CD117+, c-met+ stem cells, and mononuclear cells expressing early cardiac, muscle, and endothelial markers into peripheral blood in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2004; 110 :3213-3220 - 45.
Iseki M, Kushida Y, Wakao S, Akimoto T, Mizuma M, Motoi F, et al. Muse cells, nontumorigenic pluripotent-like stem cells, have liver regeneration capacity through specific homing and cell replacement in a mouse model of liver fibrosis. Cell Transplantation. 2017; 26 :821-840 - 46.
Liu X, Duan B, Cheng Z, Jia X, Mao L, Fu H, et al. SDF-1/CXCR4 axis modulates bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell apoptosis, migration and cytokine secretion. Protein & Cell. 2011; 2 :845-854 - 47.
Cornelissen AS, Maijenburg MW, Nolte MA, Voermans C. Organ-specific migration of mesenchymal stromal cells: Who, when, where and why? Immunology Letters. 2015; 168 :159-169 - 48.
Wynn RF, Hart CA, Corradi-Perini C, O’Neill L, Evans CA, Wraith JE, et al. A small proportion of mesenchymal stem cells strongly expresses functionally active CXCR4 receptor capable of promoting migration to bone marrow. Blood. 2004; 104 :2643-2645 - 49.
Sordi V, Malosio ML, Marchesi F, Mercalli A, Melzi R, Giordano T, et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells express a restricted set of functionally active chemokine receptors capable of promoting migration to pancreatic islets. Blood. 2005; 106 :419-427 - 50.
Honczarenko M, Le Y, Swierkowski M, Ghiran I, Glodek AM, Silberstein LE. Human bone marrow stromal cells express a distinct set of biologically functional chemokine receptors. Stem Cells. 2006; 24 :1030-1041 - 51.
Kyriakou C, Rabin N, Pizzey A, Nathwani A, Yong K. Factors that influence short-term homing of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in a xenogeneic animal model. Haematologica. 2008; 93 :1457-1465 - 52.
Chen W, Li M, Cheng H, Yan Z, Cao J, Pan B, et al. Overexpression of the mesenchymal stem cell Cxcr4 gene in irradiated mice increases the homing capacity of these cells. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics. 2013; 67 :1181-1191 - 53.
Bobis-Wozowicz S, Miekus K, Wybieralska E, Jarocha D, Zawisz A, Madeja Z, et al. Genetically modified adipose tissue−derived mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing CXCR4 display increased motility, invasiveness, and homing to bone marrow of NOD/SCID mice. Experimental Hematology. 2011; 39 :686-696.e4 - 54.
Ponomaryov T, Peled A, Petit I, Taichman RS, Habler L, Sandbank J, et al. Induction of the chemokine stromal-derived factor-1 following DNA damage improves human stem cell function. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2000; 106 :1331-1339 - 55.
Piersma AH, Ploemacher RE, Brockbank KGM. Transplantation of bone marrow fibroblastoid stromal cells in mice via the intravenous route. British Journal of Haematology. 1983; 54 :285-290 - 56.
Meng SS, Xu XP, Chang W, Lu ZH, Huang LL, Xu JY, et al. LincRNA-p21 promotes mesenchymal stem cell migration capacity and survival through hypoxic preconditioning. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 25 Oct 2018; 9 (1):280 - 57.
Ceradini DJ, Kulkarni AR, Callaghan MJ, Tepper OM, Bastidas N, Kleinman ME, et al. Progenitor cell trafficking is regulated by hypoxic gradients through HIF-1 induction of SDF-1. Nature Medicine. 2004; 10 :858-864 - 58.
Friedenstein A, Ivanov-Smolenski A, Chajlakjan R, Gorskaya U, Kuralesova A, Latzinik N, et al. Origin of bone marrow stromal mechanocytes in radiochimeras and heterotopic transplants. Experimental Hematology. 1978; 6 :440-444 - 59.
Ivanov-Smolenskiĭ AA, Chaĭlakhian RK, Gerasimov IV, Gorskaia IF, Kuralesova AI. Origin of stromal bone marrow mechanocytes according to the results of typing them by isoantigens and chromosomal markers. Ontogenez. 1978; 9 :245-252 - 60.
Chertkov JL, Drize NJ, Gurevitch OA, Udalov GA. Hemopoietic stromal precursors in long-term culture of bone marrow: I. Precursor characteristics, kinetics in culture, and dependence on quality of donor hemopoietic cells in chimeras. Experimental Hematology. 1983; 11 :231-242 - 61.
Chertkov J, Drize N, Gurevitch O, Samoylova R. Origin of hemopoietic stromal progenitor cells in chimeras. Experimental Hematology. 1985; 13 :1217-1222 - 62.
Chertkov J, Drize N, Gurevitch O. Hemopoietic stromal precursors in long-term culture of bone marrow: II. Significance of initial packing for creating a hemopoietic microenvironment and maintaining stromal precursors in the culture. Experimental Hematology. 1983; 11 :243-248 - 63.
Friedenstein AJ, Chailakhyan RK, Latsinik NV, Panasyvk AF, Keiliss-Borok IV. Stromal cells responsible for transferring the microenvironment of the hemopoietic tissues. Cloning in vitro and retransplantation in vivo. Transplantation. 1974; 17 :331-340 - 64.
Ahn SY. The role of MSCs in the tumor microenvironment and tumor progression. Anticancer Research. 2020; 40 :3039-3047 - 65.
Gu F, Zhang K, Li J, Xie X, Wen Q, Sui Z, et al. Changes of migration, immunoregulation and osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells in different stages of inflammation. International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2022; 19 :25-33 - 66.
Liu J, Gao J, Liang Z, Gao C, Niu Q, Wu F, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells and their microenvironment. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 20 Aug 2022; 13 (1):429 - 67.
Ponte AL, Marais E, Gallay N, Langonné A, Delorme B, Hérault O, et al. The in vitro migration capacity of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells: Comparison of chemokine and growth factor chemotactic activities. Stem Cells. 2007; 25 :1737-1745 - 68.
Yang N, Wang G, Hu C, Shi Y, Liao L, Shi S, et al. Tumor necrosis factor α suppresses the mesenchymal stem cell osteogenesis promoter miR-21 in estrogen deficiency-induced osteoporosis. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 2013; 28 :559-573 - 69.
Durand N, Russell A, Zubair AC. Effect of comedications and endotoxins on mesenchymal stem cell secretomes, migratory and immunomodulatory capacity. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 11 Apr 2019; 8 (4):497 - 70.
Li Y, Zhong X, Zhang Y, Lu X. Mesenchymal stem cells in gastric cancer: Vicious but hopeful. Frontiers in Oncology. 11 May 2021; 11 :617677 - 71.
Le Blanc K, Rasmusson I, Götherström C, Seidel C, Sundberg B, Sundin M, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells inhibit the expression of CD25 (interleukin-2 receptor) and CD38 on phytohaemagglutinin-activated lymphocytes. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. 2004; 60 :307-315 - 72.
Pradier A, Passweg J, Villard J, Kindler V. Human bone marrow stromal cells and skin fibroblasts inhibit natural killer cell proliferation and cytotoxic activity. Cell Transplantation. 2011; 20 :681-691 - 73.
Petinati NA, Kapranov NM, Bigil’deev AE, Popova MD, Davydova YO, Gal’tseva IV, et al. Changing the properties of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells by IFNγ administration. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2017; 163 :230-234 - 74.
López-García L, Castro-Manrreza ME. Tnf-α and ifn-γ participate in improving the immunoregulatory capacity of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells: Importance of cell-cell contact and extracellular vesicles. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2 Sep 2021; 22 (17):9531 - 75.
Liu H, Li R, Liu T, Yang L, Yin G, Xie Q. Immunomodulatory effects of mesenchymal stem cells and mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in rheumatoid arthritis. Frontiers in Immunology. 20 Aug 2020; 11 :1912 - 76.
Mendt M, Rezvani K, Shpall E. Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes for clinical use. Bone Marrow Transplantation. 2019; 542 (54):789-792 - 77.
Berglund AK, Fortier LA, Antczak DF, Schnabel LV. Immunoprivileged no more: Measuring the immunogenicity of allogeneic adult mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 22 Dec 2017; 8 (1):288 - 78.
Ankrum JA, Ong JF, Karp JM. Mesenchymal stem cells: Immune evasive, not immune privileged. Nature Biotechnology. 2014; 32 :252-260 - 79.
Petinati N, Drize N, Sats N, Risinskaya N, Sudarikov A, Drokov M, et al. Recovery of donor hematopoiesis after graft failure and second hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with intraosseous administration of mesenchymal stromal cells. Stem Cells International. 10 Apr 2018; 2018 :6495018 - 80.
Kuzmina LA, Petinati NA, Sats NV, Drize NJ, Risinskaya NV, Sudarikov AB, et al. Long-term survival of donor bone marrow multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells implanted into the periosteum of patients with allogeneic graft failure. International Journal of Hematology. 2016; 104 :403-407 - 81.
Liechty KW, Mackenzie TC, Shaaban AF, Radu A, Moseley AMB, Deans R, et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells engraft and demonstrate site-specific differentiation after in utero transplantation in sheep. Nature Medicine. 2000; 6 :1282-1286 - 82.
Karpenko D, Kapranov N, Bigildeev A. Nestin-GFP transgene labels immunoprivileged bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in the model of ectopic foci formation. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 5 Sep 2022; 10 :993056 - 83.
Karpenko D, Kapranov N, Bigildeev A. Strong Immune Privileges of MSC and Other Nes-GFP+ Progenitors in Bone Marrow of Transgenic Mice. Immune Network. Apr 2025; 25 :e20 - 84.
Petinati N, Kapranov N, Davydova Y, Bigildeev A, Pshenichnikova O, Karpenko D, et al. Immunophenotypic characteristics of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells that affect the efficacy of their use in the prevention of acute graft vs host disease. World Journal of Stem Cells. 2020; 12 :1377-1395 - 85.
Metwally AM, Li H, Houghton J. Alterations of epigenetic regulators and P53 mutations in murine mesenchymal stem cell cultures: A possible mechanism of spontaneous transformation. Cancer Biomarkers. 2021; 32 :327-337 - 86.
Saidi N, Ghalavand M, Hashemzadeh MS, Dorostkar R, Mohammadi H, Mahdian-shakib A. Dynamic changes of epigenetic signatures during chondrogenic and adipogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 2017; 89 :719-731 - 87.
Keating A, Singer JW, Killen PD, Striker GE, Salo AC, Sanders J, et al. Donor origin of the in vitro haematopoietic microenvironment after marrow transplantation in man. Nature. 1982; 298 :280-283 - 88.
Marshall MJ, Nisbet NW, Evans S. Donor origin of the in vitro hematopoietic microenvironment after marrow transplantation in mice. Experientia. 1984; 40 :385-386 - 89.
Sale G, Storb R. Bilateral diffuse pulmonary ectopic ossification after marrow allograft in a dog. Evidence for allotransplantation of hemopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells. Experimental Hematology. 1983; 11 :961-966 - 90.
Nilsson SK, Dooner MS, Weier HU, Frenkel B, Lian JB, Stein GS, et al. Cells capable of bone production engraft from whole bone marrow transplants in nonablated mice. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. 1999; 189 :729-734 - 91.
Goan SR, Junghahn I, Wissler M, Becker M, Aumann J, Just U, et al. Donor stromal cells from human blood engraft in NOD/SCID mice. Blood. 2000; 96 :3971-3978 - 92.
Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC, Jaiswal RK, Douglas R, Mosca JD, et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science. 1999; 284 :143-147 - 93.
Méndez-Ferrer S, Michurina TV, Ferraro F, Mazloom AR, MacArthur BD, Lira SA, et al. Mesenchymal and haematopoietic stem cells form a unique bone marrow niche. Nature. 2010; 466 :829-834 - 94.
Kfoury Y, Scadden DT. Mesenchymal cell contributions to the stem cell niche. Cell Stem Cell. 2015; 16 :239-253 - 95.
Chertkov JL, Gurevitch OA, Udalov GA. Role of bone marrow stroma in hemopoietic stem cell regulation. Experimental Hematology. 1980; 8 :770-778 - 96.
Nicolay NH, Lopez Perez R, Debus J, Huber PE. Mesenchymal stem cells - A new hope for radiotherapy-induced tissue damage? Cancer Letters. 2015; 366 :133-140 - 97.
Bigildeev AE, Bigildeev EA, Boulygina ES, Tsygankova SV, Gusakova MS, Illarionova OI. Successful bone marrow stroma transplantation is enabled by preliminary recipient’s stromal compartment injury. Scientific Reports. 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202502.1215.v1 - 98.
Chertkov J, Gurevitch O. Radiosensitivity of progenitor cells of the hematopoietic microenvironment. Radiation Research. 1979; 79 :177-186 - 99.
Valiev AK, Konev AA, Kurilchik AA, Machak GN, Musaev ER, Rogozhin DV, et al. Malignant bone tumors. Malignant Tumors. 2023; 13 :335-355 - 100.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Bone Cancer (Version 2.2025). 2025. p. 2 - 101.
Yoshida H, Hayashi SI, Kunisada T, Ogawa M, Nishikawa S, Okamura H, et al. The murine mutation osteopetrosis is in the coding region of the macrophage colony stimulating factor gene. Nature. 1990; 345 :442-444 - 102.
Nakano T, Kodama H, Honjo T. Generation of lymphohematopoietic cells from embryonic stem cells in culture. Science. 1994; 265 :1098-1101 - 103.
Globig P, Willumeit-Römer R, Martini F, Mazzoni E, Luthringer-Feyerabend BJC. Optimizing an osteosarcoma-fibroblast coculture model to study antitumoral activity of magnesium-based biomaterials. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21 :1-18 - 104.
Minguell JJ, Erices A, Conget P. Mesenchymal stem cells. Experimental Biology and Medicine (Maywood, N.J.). 2001; 226 :507-520 - 105.
Costela-ruiz VJ, Melguizo-rodríguez L, Bellotti C, Illescas-montes R, Stanco D, Arciola CR, et al. Different sources of mesenchymal stem cells for tissue regeneration: A guide to identifying the most favorable one in orthopedics and dentistry applications. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 6 Jun 2022; 23 (11):6356 - 106.
Yang D, Liu J, Qian H, Zhuang Q. Cancer-associated fibroblasts: From basic science to anticancer therapy. Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 2023; 55 :1322-1332 - 107.
Baryawno N, Przybylski D, Kowalczyk MS, Kfoury Y, Severe N, Gustafsson K, et al. A cellular taxonomy of the bone marrow stroma in homeostasis and leukemia. Cell. 2019; 177 :1915-1932.e16 - 108.
Li H, Ghazanfari R, Zacharaki D, Lim HC, Scheding S. Isolation and characterization of primary bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2016; 1370 :109-118 - 109.
Watson JT, Foo T, Wu J, Moed BR, Thorpe M, Schon L, et al. CD271 as a marker for mesenchymal stem cells in bone marrow versus umbilical cord blood. Cells, Tissues, Organs. 2013; 197 :496-504 - 110.
Armulik A, Genové G, Betsholtz C. Pericytes: Developmental, physiological, and pathological perspectives, problems, and promises. Developmental Cell. 2011; 21 :193-215 - 111.
Kunisaki Y, Bruns I, Scheiermann C, Ahmed J, Pinho S, Zhang D, et al. Arteriolar niches maintain haematopoietic stem cell quiescence. Nature. 2013; 502 :637 - 112.
Wakao S, Kitada M, Kuroda Y, Shigemoto T, Matsuse D, Akashi H, et al. Multilineage-differentiating stress-enduring (muse) cells are a primary source of induced pluripotent stem cells in human fibroblasts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011; 108 :9875-9880 - 113.
Morrison SJ, Scadden DT. The bone marrow niche for haematopoietic stem cells. Nature. 2014; 505 :327-334 - 114.
Calvi LM, Adams GB, Weibrecht KW, Weber JM, Olson DP, Knight MC, et al. Osteoblastic cells regulate the haematopoietic stem cell niche. Nature. 2003; 425 :841-846 - 115.
Coskun S, Hirschi KK. Establishment and regulation of the HSC niche: Roles of osteoblastic and vascular compartments. Birth Defects Research. Part C, Embryo Today. 2010; 90 :229-242 - 116.
Sugiyama T, Omatsu Y, Nagasawa T. Niches for hematopoietic stem cells and immune cell progenitors. International Immunology. 2019; 31 :5-11 - 117.
Reyes-Botella C, Montes MJ, Abadía-Molina AC, Vallecillo-Capilla MF, Ruiz C. CD10 expression in cultured human osteoblast-like cells. Folia Biologica. 1999; 45 :257-260 - 118.
Reyes-Botella C, Montes M, Vallecillo-Capilla M, Olivares E, Ruiz C. Antigenic phenotype of cultured human osteoblast-like cells. Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry. 2002; 12 :359-364 - 119.
Ignatius A, Schoengraf P, Kreja L, Liedert A, Recknagel S, Kandert S, et al. Complement C3a and C5a modulate osteoclast formation and inflammatory response of osteoblasts in synergism with IL-1β. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. 2011; 112 :2594-2605 - 120.
Badawy T, Kyumoto-Nakamura Y, Uehara N, Zhang J, Sonoda S, Hiura H, et al. Osteoblast lineage-specific cell-surface antigen (A7) regulates osteoclast recruitment and calcification during bone remodeling. Laboratory Investigation. 2019; 99 :866-884 - 121.
Brinkmann U, Kontermann RE. The making of bispecific antibodies. MAbs. 2017; 9 :182-212 - 122.
Shim H. Bispecific antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates for cancer therapy: Technological considerations. Biomolecules. 26 Feb 2020; 10 (3):360 - 123.
Gross G, Waks T, Eshhar Z. Expression of immunoglobulin-T-cell receptor chimeric molecules as functional receptors with antibody-type specificity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1989; 86 :10024-10028 - 124.
Irving BA, Weiss A. The cytoplasmic domain of the T cell receptor zeta chain is sufficient to couple to receptor-associated signal transduction pathways. Cell. 1991; 64 :891-901 - 125.
Kalos M, Levine BL, Porter DL, Katz S, Grupp SA, Bagg A, et al. T cells with chimeric antigen receptors have potent antitumor effects and can establish memory in patients with advanced Leukemia. Science Translational Medicine. 2011; 3 :95ra73 - 126.
Xie G, Dong H, Liang Y, Ham JD, Rizwan R, Chen J. CAR-NK cells: A promising cellular immunotherapy for cancer. eBioMedicine. Sep 2020; 59 :102975 - 127.
Gourd E. CAR T-cell cocktail therapy for B-cell malignancies. The Lancet Oncology. 2019; 20 :e669 - 128.
Hirata Y, Furuhashi K, Ishii H, Li HW, Pinho S, Ding L, et al. CD150 high bone marrow Tregs maintain hematopoietic stem cell quiescence and immune privilege via adenosine. Cell Stem Cell. 2018; 22 :445-453.e5 - 129.
Riether C. Regulation of hematopoietic and leukemia stem cells by regulatory T cells. Frontiers in Immunology. 2 Nov 2022; 13 :1049301 - 130.
Kasahara H, Kondo T, Nakatsukasa H, Chikuma S, Ito M, Ando M, et al. Generation of Allo-antigen-specific induced Treg stabilized by vitamin C treatment and its application for prevention of acute graft versus host disease model. International Immunology. 2017; 29 :457-469 - 131.
Sirpilla O, Sakemura RL, Hefazi M, Kimball BL, Huynh TN, Siegler EL, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor design in human mesenchymal stromal cells (CAR-MSCs) mediates homing to target sites and downstream immunosuppression for immune disease treatment. Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. 2024; 30 :S11-S12 - 132.
Yan L, Li J, Zhang C. The role of MSCs and CAR-MSCs in cellular immunotherapy. Cell Communication and Signaling: CCS. 2023; 211 (21):1-22 - 133.
Kovtun I, von Bonin M, Ibneeva L, Frimmel J, Middeke JM, Kunadt D, et al. Profound sympathetic neuropathy in the bone marrow of patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2024; 38 :393-397 - 134.
Cai TY, Zhu W, Chen XS, Zhou SY, Jia LS, Sun YQ. Fibroblast growth factor 2 induces mesenchymal stem cells to differentiate into tenocytes through the MAPK pathway. Molecular Medicine Reports. 2013; 8 :1323-1328 - 135.
Li SN, Wu JF. TGF-β/SMAD signaling regulation of mesenchymal stem cells in adipocyte commitment. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 29 Jan 2020; 11 (1):41 - 136.
Bigildeev AE, Zhironkina OA, Lubkova ON, Drize NJ. Interleukin-1 beta is an irradiation-induced stromal growth factor. Cytokine. 2013; 64 :131-137 - 137.
Bigildeev AE, Zezina EA, Shipounova IN, Drize NJ. Interleukin-1 beta enhances human multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell proliferative potential and their ability to maintain hematopoietic precursor cells. Cytokine. 2015; 71 :246-254 - 138.
Hackel A, Aksamit A, Bruderek K, Lang S, Brandau S. TNF-α and IL-1β sensitize human MSC for IFN-γ signaling and enhance neutrophil recruitment. European Journal of Immunology. 2021; 51 :319-330 - 139.
Burnham AJ, Foppiani EM, Goss KL, Jang-Milligan F, Kamalakar A, Bradley H, et al. Differential response of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to type 1 ex vivo cytokine priming: Implications for MSC therapy. Cytotherapy. 2023; 25 :1277-1284 - 140.
Leitão L, Alves CJ, Sousa DM, Neto E, Conceição F, Lamghari M. The alliance between nerve fibers and stem cell populations in bone marrow: Life partners in sickness and health. The FASEB Journal. 2019; 33 :8697-8710 - 141.
Doglio M, Crossland RE, Alho AC, Penack O, Dickinson AM, Stary G, et al. Cell-based therapy in prophylaxis and treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Frontiers in Immunology. 17 Nov 2022; 13 :1045168 - 142.
Zaripova LN, Midgley A, Christmas SE, Beresford MW, Pain C, Baildam EM, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in the pathogenesis and therapy of autoimmune and autoinflammatory diseases. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 7 Nov 2023; 24 (22):16040 - 143.
Vianello F, Dazzi F. Mesenchymal stem cells for graft-versus-host disease: A double edged sword? Leukemia. 2008; 22 :463-465 - 144.
Forte D, García-Fernández M, Sánchez-Aguilera A, Stavropoulou V, Fielding C, Martín-Pérez D, et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells support acute myeloid Leukemia bioenergetics and enhance antioxidant Defense and escape from chemotherapy. Cell Metabolism. 2020; 32 :829-843.e9 - 145.
Ramuta TŽ, Kreft ME. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells may decrease success of cancer treatment by inducing resistance to chemotherapy in cancer cells. Cancers (Basel). 2 Aug 2022; 14 (15):3761 - 146.
Antoon R, Overdevest N, Saleh AH, Keating A. Mesenchymal stromal cells as cancer promoters. Oncogene. Nov 2024; 43 (49):3545-3555 - 147.
Lee MW, Ryu S, Kim DS, Lee JW, Sung KW, Koo HH, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in suppression or progression of hematologic malignancy: Current status and challenges. Leukemia. 2019; 33 :597-611 - 148.
Wong RSY. Mesenchymal stem cells: Angels or demons? Journal of Biomedicine & Biotechnology. 2011:8. Article ID: 459510. DOI: 10.1155/2011/459510 - 149.
Qiao L, Xu ZL, Zhao TJ, Ye LH, Zhang XD. Dkk-1 secreted by mesenchymal stem cells inhibits growth of breast cancer cells via depression of Wnt signalling. Cancer Letters. 2008; 269 :67-77 - 150.
Li L, Tian H, Yue W, Zhu F, Li S, Li W. Human mesenchymal stem cells play a dual role on tumor cell growth in vitro and in vivo. Journal of Cellular Physiology. 2011; 226 :1860-1867 - 151.
Kidd S, Caldwell L, Dietrich M, Samudio I, Spaeth EL, Watson K, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells alone or expressing interferon-beta suppress pancreatic tumors in vivo, an effect countered by anti-inflammatory treatment. Cytotherapy. 2010; 12 :615-625 - 152.
Karnoub AE, Dash AB, Vo AP, Sullivan A, Brooks MW, Bell GW, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature. 2007; 449 :557-563 - 153.
Suzuki K, Sun R, Origuch M, Kanehira M, Takahata T, Itoh J, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells promote tumor growth through the enhancement of neovascularization. Molecular Medicine. 2011; 17 :579-587 - 154.
Yu JM, Jun ES, Bae YC, Jung JS. Mesenchymal stem cells derived from human adipose tissues favor tumor cell growth in vivo. Stem Cells and Development. 2008; 17 :463-473 - 155.
Lin G, Yang R, Banie L, Wang G, Ning H, Li LC, et al. Effects of transplantation of adipose tissue-derived stem cells on prostate tumor. Prostate. 2010; 70 :1066-1073 - 156.
Klopp AH, Gupta A, Spaeth E, Andreeff M, Marini F. Concise review: Dissecting a discrepancy in the literature: Do mesenchymal stem cells support or suppress tumor growth? Stem Cells. 2011; 29 :11-19 - 157.
Nobre AR, Risson E, Singh DK, Di Martino JS, Cheung JF, Wang J, et al. Bone marrow NG2+/nestin+ mesenchymal stem cells drive DTC dormancy via TGF-β2. Nature Cancer. 2021; 23 (2):327-339 - 158.
Ning H, Yang F, Jiang M, Hu L, Feng K, Zhang J, et al. The correlation between cotransplantation of mesenchymal stem cells and higher recurrence rate in hematologic malignancy patients: Outcome of a pilot clinical study. Leukemia. 2008; 22 :593-599 - 159.
Zeng Z, Shi YX, Samudio IJ, Wang RY, Ling X, Frolova O, et al. Targeting the leukemia microenvironment by CXCR4 inhibition overcomes resistance to kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy in AML. Blood. 2009; 113 :6215-6224 - 160.
Konopleva M, Konoplev S, Hu W, Zaritskey AY, Afanasiev BV, Andreeff M. Stromal cells prevent apoptosis of AML cells by up-regulation of anti-apoptotic proteins. Leukemia. 2002; 16 :1713-1724 - 161.
Jin L, Tabe Y, Konoplev S, Xu Y, Leysath CE, Lu H, et al. CXCR4 up-regulation by imatinib induces chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) cell migration to bone marrow stroma and promotes survival of quiescent CML cells. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. 2008; 7 :48-58 - 162.
Vianello F, Villanova F, Tisato V, Lymperi S, Ho KK, Gomes AR, et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells non-selectively protect chronic myeloid leukemia cells from imatinib-induced apoptosis via the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis. Haematologica. 2010; 95 :1081-1089 - 163.
Zhang Y, Hu K, Hu Y, Liu L, Wang B, Huang H. Bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells affect the cell cycle arrest effect of genotoxic agents on acute lymphocytic leukemia cells via p21 down-regulation. Annals of Hematology. 2014; 93 :1499-1508 - 164.
Zhang X, Tu H, Yang Y, Wan Q, Fang L, Wu Q, et al. High IL-7 levels in the bone marrow microenvironment mediate imatinib resistance and predict disease progression in chronic myeloid leukemia. International Journal of Hematology. 2016; 104 :358-367 - 165.
Cai J, Wang J, Huang Y, Wu H, Xia T, Xiao J, et al. ERK/Drp1-dependent mitochondrial fission is involved in the MSC-induced drug resistance of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells. Cell Death & Disease. 2016; 7 (11):e2459, 11 - 166.
Carter BZ, Mak PY, Chen Y, Mak DH, Mu H, Jacamo R, et al. Anti-apoptotic ARC protein confers chemoresistance by controlling leukemia-microenvironment interactions through a NFκB/IL1β signaling network. Oncotarget. 2016; 7 :20054-20067 - 167.
Kamga PT, Bassi G, Cassaro A, Midolo M, Di Trapani M, Gatti A, et al. Notch signalling drives bone marrow stromal cell-mediated chemoresistance in acute myeloid leukemia. Oncotarget. 2016; 7 :21713-21727 - 168.
Bernardo ME, Avanzini MA, Perotti C, Cometa AM, Moretta A, Lenta E, et al. Optimization of in vitro expansion of human multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells for cell-therapy approaches: Further insights in the search for a fetal calf serum substitute. Journal of Cellular Physiology. 2007; 211 :121-130 - 169.
Kim J, Kang JW, Park JH, Choi Y, Choi KS, Park KD, et al. Biological characterization of long-term cultured human mesenchymal stem cells. Archives of Pharmacal Research. 2009; 32 :117-126 - 170.
Choumerianou DM, Dimitriou H, Perdikogianni C, Martimianaki G, Riminucci M, Kalmanti M. Study of oncogenic transformation in ex vivo expanded mesenchymal cells, from paediatric bone marrow. Cell Proliferation. 2008; 41 :909-922 - 171.
Wang Y, Huso DI, Harrington J, Kellner J, Jeong DK, Turney J, et al. Outgrowth of a transformed cell population derived from normal human BM mesenchymal stem cell culture. Cytotherapy. 2005; 7 :509-519 - 172.
Røsland GV, Svendsen A, Torsvik A, Sobala E, McCormack E, Immervoll H, et al. Long-term cultures of bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells frequently undergo spontaneous malignant transformation. Cancer Research. 2009; 69 :5331-5339 - 173.
Mutsaers AJ, Walkley CR. Cells of origin in osteosarcoma: Mesenchymal stem cells or osteoblast committed cells? Bone. 2014; 62 :56-63 - 174.
Abarrategi A, Tornin J, Lucia MC, Hamilton A, Enrique MC, Rodrigo JP, et al. Osteosarcoma: Cells-of-origin, cancer stem cells, and targeted therapies. Stem Cells International. 2016; 2016 :3631764 - 175.
Yamanaka R, Hayano A. Radiation-induced Schwannomas and neurofibromas: A systematic review. World Neurosurgery. 2017; 104 :713-722 - 176.
Yamanaka R, Hayano A. Radiation-induced malignant peripheral nerve sheath Tumors: A systematic review. World Neurosurgery. 2017; 105 :961-970.e8 - 177.
Inchaustegui ML, Kon-Liao K, Ruiz-Arellanos K, Silva GAE, Gonzalez MR, Pretell-Mazzini J. Treatment and outcomes of radiation-induced soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and trunk—A systematic review of the literature. Cancers (Basel). 25 Nov 2023; 15 (23):5584 - 178.
Kunisaki Y. Pericytes in bone marrow. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2019; 1122 :101-114 - 179.
Lebeau G, Ah-Pine F, Daniel M, Bedoui Y, Vagner D, Frumence E, et al. Perivascular mesenchymal stem/stromal cells, an immune privileged niche for viruses? International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 21 Jul 2022; 23 (14):8038