Autologous fibroblast transplantation at the vesico-ureteral junction as potential reconstructive cell replacement in an animal model
- 153 Downloads
To evaluate the cellular survival of donor fibroblasts after transplantation at the vesico-ureteral junction (VUJ) and to analyse their potential for reconstructive cell replacement in an animal model as autologous fibroblasts have been used as soft tissue augmentation material for scared and damaged tissue.
Muscles biopsies were procured from the lower limb muscles of 4 pigs; cytoplasm of fibroblasts was labelled with nano-sized iron oxide particles. Six weeks after taking of the muscle biopsies, fibroblast transplantation was performed, 3 × 106 cells suspended in transplantation medium (in 1-ml syringes) were injected at the VUJ using the modified STING technique. Animals were killed 8 weeks later; seeded fibroblasts were identified using prussian blue staining protocol; histological evaluation and morphological analysis were performed by light microscopy (Mayer’s haematoxylin-eosin staining); and bladders were scanned by MRI for visualization and localization of the iron-labelled donor cells.
Donor fibroblast cell colonization and cellular viability at the VUJ was demonstrated by MRI and histochemically indicating cellular uptake of iron particles at the VUJ. It was also evident that transplanted fibroblasts integrate into the extracellular matrix of the distal ureter augmenting ureteral host tissue.
Labelled implanted autologous fibroblasts were visualized by staining procedure as well as MRI scan demonstrating persistence at the VUJ, suggesting that in vitro expanded fibroblasts survived in vivo after transplantation.
KeywordsBulking agent Fibroblasts Vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) Animal model Therapy Tissue engineering
We would like to sincerely thank each and every reviewer who dedicated his or her time and expertise to reviewing our manuscripts and everybody who supported us and collaborated with us.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Murphy KE, Hall CL, Maini PK, McCue SW, McElwain DL (2012) A fibrocontractive mechanochemical model of dermal wound closure incorporating realistic growth factor kinetics. Bull Math Biol 2012 Jan 13 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 4.Eça LP, Pinto DG, de Pinho AM, Mazzetti MP, Odo ME (2012) Autologous fibroblast culture in the repair of aging skin. Dermatol Surg 38(2):180–184Google Scholar
- 6.Matuszewski L, Persigehl T, Wall A, Schwindt W, Tombach B, Fobker M, Poremba C, Ebert W, Heindel W, Bremer C (2005) Cell tagging with clinically approved iron oxides: feasibility and effect of lipofection, particle size, and surface coating on labeling efficiency. Radiology 235(1):155–61 [Epub 2005 Mar 4]Google Scholar
- 7.Coulthard MG (2009) Vesicoureteric reflux is not a benign condition. Pediatr Nephrol 24(2):227–32 [Epub 2008 Jun 27]Google Scholar
- 10.Routh JC, Inman BA, Reinberg Y (2010) Dextranomer/hyaluronic acid for pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: systematic review. Pediatrics 125(5):1010–1019 [Epub 2010 Apr 5]Google Scholar
- 11.Kirsch AJ, Perez-Bayfield M, Smith EA, Scherz HC (2004) The modified sting procedure to correct vesicoureteral reflux: improved results with submucosal implantation within the intramural ureter. J Urol 171(6, part1):2413–2426Google Scholar
- 13.Oswald J, Riccabona M, Lusuardi L, Bartsch G, Radmayr C (2002) Prospective comparison and 1-year follow-up of a single endoscopic subureteral polydimethylsiloxane versus dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer injection for treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children. Urology 60(5):894–897 (discussion 898)Google Scholar
- 17.Paltiel HJ, Diamond DA, Zurakowski D, Drubach LA, Atala A (2004) Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux with autologous chondrocytes: postoperative sonographic features. Radiology 232(2):390–397 [Epub 2004 June 23]Google Scholar
- 18.Mitterberger M, Marksteiner R, Schwaiger W et al. (2008) Can autologous myoblasts be used as a potential bulking agent? BJU Int 102(11):1731–1736 [Epub 2008 Sep 3]Google Scholar
- 23.Martinez-Hernandez A (1994) Repair, regeneration and fibrosis. In: Rubin E, Farber JL (eds) Pathology. J B Lipincott, Philadelphia, pp 81–93Google Scholar
- 26.Arbab AS, Bashaw LA, Miller BR, Jordan EK, Lewis BK, Kalish H, Frank JA (2003) Characterization of biophysical and metabolic properties of cells labeled with superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles and transfection agent for cellular MR imaging. Radiology 229(3):838–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Pawelczyk E, Arbab AS, Chaudhry A, Balakumaran A, Robey PG, Frank JA (2008) In vitro model of bromodeoxyuridine or iron oxide nanoparticle uptake by activated macrophages from labeled stem cells: implications for cellular therapy. Stem Cells 26(5):1366–75 [Epub 2008 Feb 14]Google Scholar
- 28.Van den Bogaerdt AJ, van der Slot A, Ulrich MMW, Zuurmond A, Bank RA, Middelkoop E (2003) Altered collagen crosslinking by subcutaneous fat fibroblasts during wound healing. Wound Rep Regen 11:A28Google Scholar