Search

The last 18 years have brought an increasing interest in the therapeutic use of perinatal derivatives (PnD). Preclinical studies used to assess the potential of PnD therapy include a broad range of study designs. The COST SPRINT Action (CA17116) aims to provide systematic and comprehensive reviews of preclinical studies for the understanding of the therapeutic potential and mechanisms of PnD in diseases and injuries that benefit from PnD therapy. Here we describe the publication search and data mining, extraction, and synthesis strategies employed to collect and prepare the published data selected for meta-analyses and reviews of the efficacy of PnD therapies for different diseases and injuries. A coordinated effort was made to prepare the data suitable to make statements for the treatment efficacy of the different types of PnD, routes, time points and frequencies of administration, and the dosage based on clinically relevant effects resulting in clear increase, recovery or amelioration of the specific tissue or organ function. According to recently proposed guidelines, the harmonization of the nomenclature of PnD types will allow for the assessment of the most efficient treatments in various disease models. Experts within the COST SPRINT Action (CA17116), together with external collaborators, will do the meta-analyses and reviews using the data prepared with the strategies presented here in the relevant disease or research fields. Our final aim is to provide standards to assess the safety and clinical benefit of PnD and to minimize redundancy in the use of animal models following the 3R principles for animal experimentation., {"references":["Aziz J, Liao G, Adams Z, Rizk M, Shorr R, Allan DS (2019). Systematic review of controlled clinical studies using umbilical cord blood for regenerative therapy: Identifying barriers to assessing efficacy. Cytotherapy. 21:1112-1121. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2019.08.004","Dimensions. Digital Science & Research Solutions Inc., London, United Kingdom (2020). https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication [Accessed December 11, 2020]","InCites Journal Citation Report. Clarivate, Boston, MA, United States of America (2020). https://jcr.clarivate.com/ [Accessed December 11, 2020]","Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW (2014). SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 14:43. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43","Hook DW, Porter SJ, Herzog C. (2018). Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 3:23. doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00023","Hutchins BI, Baker KL, Davis MT, Diwersy MA, Haque E, Harriman RM, Hoppe TA, Leicht SA, Meyer P, Santangelo GM (2019a). The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource. PLoS Biol. 17:e3000385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000385","Hutchins BI, Davis MT, Meseroll RA, Santangelo GM (2019b). Predicting translational progress in biomedical research. PLoS Biol. 17:e3000416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000416","Hutchins BI, Hoppe TA, Meseroll RA, Anderson JM, Santangelo GM (2017). Additional support for RCR: A validated article-level measure of scientific influence. PLoS Biol. 15:e2003552. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003552","Hutchins BI, Yuan X, Anderson JM, and Santangelo GM. (2016). Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLoS Biol. 14:e1002541. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541","Kassem DH, Kamal MM (2020). Therapeutic efficacy of umbilical cord-derived stem cells for diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis study. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 11:484. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-01996-x","Maltais-Bilodeau C, Henckel E, Cobey KD, Ahmadzai N, Skidmore B, Ferretti E, Thébaud B (2021). Efficacy of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Preclinical Models of Necrotizing Enterocolitis: a Systematic Review Protocol. Research Square [Preprint]. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-239448/v1","McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, Thomson HJ, Johnston RV, Thomas J (2021). \"Chapter 3: Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis\". In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022), Cochrane (2022). https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-03 [Accessed February 22, 2021]","Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021a). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71","Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, McKenzie JE. (2021b). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160","Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. (2020). The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 18:e3000410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410","PubMed. US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, United States of America (2020b). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed [Accessed February 22, 2022].","Rohatgi, A. (2020). WebPlotDigitizer, version 4.4. (Pacifica, CA, United States of America). https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer [Accessed December 11, 2020]","Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London, UK: Methuen & Co. Limited","Silini AR, Di Pietro R, Lang-Olip I, Alviano F, Banerjee A, Basile M, Borutinskaite V, Eissner G, Gellhaus A, Giebel B, Huang Y-C, Janev A, Erdani Kreft M, Kupper N, Abadía-Molina AC, Olivares EG, Pandolfi A, Papait A, Pozzobon M, Ruiz-Ruiz C, Soritau O, Susman S, Szukiewicz D, Weidinger A, Wolbank S, Huppertz B, Parolini O (2020). Perinatal Derivatives: Where Do We Stand? A Roadmap of the Human Placenta and Consensus for Tissue and Cell Nomenclature. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8:1438. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.610544","Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan A-W, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Julian Pt Higgins JP (2016). ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919","Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2019). RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898"]}

Reproductive diseases could lead to infertility and have implications for overall health, most importantly due to psychological, medical and socio-economic consequences for individuals and society. Furthermore, economical losses also occur in animal husbandry. In both human and veterinary medicine, hormonal and surgical treatments, as well as assisted reproductive technologies are used to cure reproductive disorders, however they do not improve fertility. With ovarian disorders being the main reproductive pathology in human and bovine, over the past 2 decades research has approached regenerative medicine in animal model to restore normal function. Ovarian pathologies are characterized by granulosa cell and oocyte apoptosis, follicular atresia, decrease in oocyte quality and embryonic development potential, oxidative stress and mitochondrial abnormalities, ultimately leading to a decrease in fertility. At current, application of mesenchymal stromal cells or derivatives thereof represents a valid strategy for regenerative purposes. Considering their paracrine/autocrine mode of actions that are able to regenerate injured tissues, trophic support, preventing apoptosis and fibrosis, promoting angiogenesis, stimulating the function and differentiation of endogenous stem cells and even reducing the immune response, are all important players in their future therapeutic success. Nevertheless, obtaining mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) from adult tissues requires invasive procedures and implicates decreased cell proliferation and a reduced differentiation capacity with age. Alternatively, the use of embryonic stem cells as source of cellular therapeutic encountered several ethical concerns, as well as the risk of teratoma formation. Therefore, several studies have recently focussed on perinatal derivatives (PnD) that can be collected non-invasively and, most importantly, display similar characteristics in terms of regenerating-inducing properties, immune-modulating properties and hypo-immunogenicity. This review will provide an overview of the current knowledge and future perspectives of PnD application in the treatment of ovarian hypofunction.

Proceedings of: TERMIS EU 2019, 27th-31st May 2019, Rhodes, Greece. Rapid developments in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering has witnessed an increasing drive toward clinical translation of breakthrough technologies. However, the progression of promising preclinical data to achieve successful clinical market authorisation remains a bottleneck. One hurdle for progress to the clinic is the transition from small animal research to advanced preclinical studies in large animals to test safety and efficacy of products. Notwithstanding this, to draw meaningful and reliable conclusions from animal experiments it is critical that the species and disease model of choice is relevant to answer the research question as well as the clinical problem. Selecting the most appropriate animal model requires in-depth knowledge of specific species and breeds to ascertain the adequacy of the model and outcome measures that closely mirror the clinical situation. Traditional reductionist approaches in animal experiments, which often do not sufficiently reflect the studied disease, are still the norm and can result in a disconnect in outcomes observed between animal studies and clinical trials. To address these concerns a reconsideration in approach will be required. This should include a stepwise approach using in vitro and ex vivo experiments as well as in silico modeling to minimize the need for in vivo studies for screening and early development studies, followed by large animal models which more closely resemble human disease. Naturally occurring, or spontaneous diseases in large animals remain a largely untapped resource, and given the similarities in pathophysiology to humans they not only allow for studying new treatment strategies but also disease etiology and prevention. Naturally occurring disease models, particularly for longer lived large animal species, allow for studying disorders at an age when the disease is most prevalent. As these diseases are usually also a concern in the chosen veterinary species they would be beneficiaries of newly developed therapies. Improved awareness of the progress in animal models is mutually beneficial for animals, researchers, human and veterinary patients. In this overview we describe advantages and disadvantages of various animal models including domesticated and companion animals used in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering to provide an informed choice of disease-relevant animal models. We would like to thank Niklas Dresen, Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, University Leipzig as well as John Breteler, Elfriede Cremer, Bernhard Cremer, and Elisabeth Schieder for the provided graphical support and Michaela Hauser for formatting the references. PB acknowledges the funded projects PI15/00563 and PI18/00529 from ISCIII, Spain.

The current research was designed to evaluate if intra-ovarian administration of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) before superovulation could increase the number of follicles responsive to gonadotropin treatment in order to improve embryo recovery in donor cows. Eight Holstein-Friesian cows of proven fertility were employed. After estrous synchronization, at the 18th day of diestrous, the right ovary of each cow was left untreated and served as control while the left ovary was inoculated with 5 mL of PRP. Cows were left to spontaneously return to estrous, and nine days later, a standard superovulation was initiated for every cow. Seven days after artificial insemination (AI), putative embryos were collected by flushing the right and left uterine horns separately. All statistics were calculated by ANOVA. The mean number of follicles, evaluated by transrectal ultrasound scanning, did not statistically differ before PRP treatment between right (control) and left (treated) ovaries (9.18 &plusmn, 1.35 and 7.32 &plusmn, 1.67, p = 0.28, respectively) as well as at 48 hours after PRP injection (7.67 &plusmn, 2.52 and 8.00 &plusmn, 2.00, p = 0.73, respectively). A statistical (p = 0.023) difference was found in the average number of follicles at the last gonadotropin injection between control and treated ovaries (11.33 &plusmn, 2.89 and 20.00 &plusmn, 9.17, respectively). The statistically different (p = 0.0037) number of grade 1-2 blastocysts harvested from the uterine horn ipsilateral to control ovaries in comparison to that collected from the treated ones (6.63 &plusmn, 2.92 and 14.75 &plusmn, 5.92, respectively) suggests that intra-ovarian injection of PRP before superovulation could exert beneficial effects both in latent follicle growth and in vivo embryo production.

Background It is known that a paracrine mechanism exists between mesenchymal stem cells and target cells. This process may involve microvesicles (MVs) as an integral component of cell-to-cell communication. Methods In this context, this study aims to understand the efficacy of MVs in in-vitro endometrial stressed cells in view of potential healing in in-vivo studies. For this purpose, the presence and type of MVs secreted by amniotic mesenchymal stem cells (AMCs) were investigated and the response of endometrial cells to MVs was studied using a dose-response curve at different concentrations and times. Moreover, the ability of MVs to counteract the in vitro stress in endometrial cells induced by lipopolysaccharide was studied by measuring the rate of apoptosis and cell proliferation, the expression of some pro-inflammatory genes such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin 1β (IL-1β), and metalloproteinases (MMP) 1 and 13, and the release of some pro- or anti-inflammatory cytokines. Results MVs secreted by the AMCs ranged in size from 100 to 200 nm. The incorporation of MVs was gradual over time and peaked at 72 h. MVs reduced the apoptosis rate, increased cell proliferation values, downregulated pro-inflammatory gene expression, and decreased the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Conclusion Our data suggest that some microRNAs could contribute to counteracting in-vivo inflammation of endometrial tissue.

The regenerative mechanisms ascribed to mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are classified into 3 categories: differentiating into damaged cell types, supplying nutrients, and improving survival/functions of the endogenous cells via paracrine actions. However, because of the inhospitable microenvironment of the injured tissues, a proportion of the implanted MSCs may quickly die, suggesting that other mechanisms might be present. This notion is supported by the overlapping beneficial effect (in terms of time of healing) resulted after the injection of AMCs or of amniotic mesenchymal cells - conditioned medium (AMC-CM) in equine spontaneous injured tendons and ligaments. Microvesicles (MVs) released by cells are an integral component of the cell-to-cell communication network involved in tissue regeneration.In the present study, MVs secreted by AMCs were investigated with Nanosigth instrument and TEM. Then, the in vitro incorporation of MVs into equine tendon cells was studied by a dose-response curve. Lastly, the ability of MVs to counteract an in vitro inflammatory process induced by lipolysaccaride on tendon cells was studied evaluating the expression of pro-inflammatory genes like metallopeptidase (MPP) 1 and 13, and prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase 2 (COX2). Results demonstrated that AMCs secreted MVs ranging in size from 100 to 1000 nm with a prevalence of 100-200 nm large MVs. Tendon cells were able to uptake them with an inverse relationship between concentration and time. The greatest incorporation was detectable at 40x106 MVs/ml after 72h. MVs induced down-regulation of MMP1 and MMP13, suggesting that they may have contributed, along with soluble factors, to in vivo tendon regeneration., International Journal of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, Vol 2, No 1s (2015): Proceeding of Veterinary and Animal Science Days