Heart Function Improved by Injecting Discarded Surgery Fat


Many patients with heart problems – such as heart disease or angina – may need to undergo cardiac surgery in order to restore or improve blood flow. But a new study suggests that the procedure may offer so much more; stem cells in fat discarded during cardiac surgery could be injected back into the patient’s heart to further improve its function.

A research team led by senior author Canadian cardiologist Dr. Ganghong Tian will present their findings at the Frontiers in Cardiovascular Biology meeting in Barcelona, Spain.

Previous work by this group has shown that subcutaneous fat (adipose tissue) contains stem cells that can reduce the severity of heart attacks, improve cardiac function, and augment blood vessel regeneration in laboratory animals with experimentally induced heart attacks. These fat-based stem cells can be easily obtained through liposuction. However, Tian noted, “But obtaining these from a patient undergoing cardiac surgery requires pre-surgery to collect adipose tissue from the subcutaneous region.”

Is there a better way? According to Tian, during cardiac surgery, the surgeon often removes fat tissue that resides around the heart (so-called mediastinal fat) in order to properly expose the heart. Tian wondered if this fat contain stem cells that could be re-introduced to the heart to improve its function after heart surgery

In order to test this hypothesis, Tian and others collected mediastinal fat tissue from 24 patients who had undergone cardiac surgery. Then Tian’s group injected rats with mediastinal fat stem cells. The rats injected with stem cells from mediastinal fat showed greater ventricular movement in their hearts and no reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction.

Closer examination of the stem cells from mediastinal fat showed that mediastinal fat housed a rather robust number of stem cells, and that these stem cells could differentiate into fat and bone cells. Also, these stem cells expressed genes that are often found in heart muscle cells.

With this pre-clinical information in hand, Tian and others examined the use of mediastinal fat-based stem cells in 13 rats with congestive heart failure. These stem cells were directly injected into the hearts of eight rats, and five were injected with a saline solution.

After 6 weeks, all the rats underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). When the five control rats were compared with those who those rats that received injections of mediastinal fat-based stem cells, the stem cell-injected rats demonstrated greater ventricular movement in their hearts and no reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (ejection fraction measures how much blood is being pumped out of the left ventricle of the heart).

Commenting on the team’s findings, Dr. Tian says: “This is the first evidence that stem cells collected from the mediastinal fat region are cardioprotective. They displayed the same cardioprotective capacity we found in our previous research on stem cells from subcutaneous fat tissue. This raises the exciting possibility of using a patient’s own stem cells, isolated from waste tissue during cardiac surgery, to improve their heart function.”

Tian noted that there are currently some issues with this procedure that need to be addressed with further research. Techniques must be developed to quickly isolate stem cells from mediastinal fat so they can be injected back into a patient’s heart during cardiac surgery. Tian said, “It currently takes several hours to purify the cells and we are looking for collaborators to help us devise a more efficient method.”

Tina and others would also like to examine the ability of these stem cells to improve cardiac function long-term, beyond the 6 weeks monitored in this study. Furthermore, Tian and his group would like to induce the stem cells into functional heart muscle cells that display electrical pulses and beating.

Caduceus Clinical Trial One-Year Update


The CADUCEUS clinical trial, which stands for CArdiosphere-Derived aUtologous stem CElls, to reverse ventricUlar dySfunction) was the brainchild of Cedar-Sinai cardiologist Eduardo Marbán and his colleagues. 

This CADUCEUS trial used a heart-specific stem cell called CDCs or cardiosphere-derived cells to treat patients who had recently suffered a heart attack.  CDCs are extracted from the patient’s own heart and they can be grown in culture, expanded, and then implanted back into the patient’s heart. The initial assessments of those patients who had received the stem cell treatments was published in 2012 in the Journal Lancet (R.R. Makkar, R.R. Smith, K. Cheng et al. Intracoronary cardiosphere-derived cells for heart regeneration after myocardial infarction (CADUCEUS): a prospective, randomised phase 1 trial. Lancet, 379 (2012), pp. 895–904). The initial assessments of these patients showed shrinkage of their heart scars.  However, these patients showed regional improvements in heart function but no significant differences in global heart function.  Despite these caveats, the initial results were hopeful. 

Now the one-year follow-up of these patients has been published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  The results of this examination are even more exciting.

CDCs were extracted from patients by means of heart biopsies of the inner part of the heart muscle (myocardium). After the cells were grown in culture to larger numbers, they were reintroduced to the hearts of the patients by means of “stop-flow” technique. This procedure utilizes the same technology as stents in that an over-the-wire balloon angioplasty catheter that was positioned in the blood vessels on the heart that were blocked. The figure below shows the cultured cardiospheres.

Specimen processing for human cardiosphere growth and CDC expansion. a, Schematic depicts the steps involved in specimen processing. b, Endomyocardial biopsy fragment on day 1. c, Explant 3 days after plating. d, Edge of explant 13 days after plating showing stromal-like and phase-bright cells. e, Cardiosphere-forming cells collected from the explant after 13 days and plated on poly-d-lysine for 2 days. f, Fully formed cardiospheres on day 25, 12 days after collection of cardiosphere-forming cells. g, CDCs during passage 2, plated on fibronectin for expansion. h and i, Cell growth is expressed as number of population doublings from the time of the first harvest for specimens from nontransplant patients (h) and specimens from transplant patients (i).
Specimen processing for human cardiosphere growth and CDC expansion. a, Schematic depicts the steps involved in specimen processing. b, Endomyocardial biopsy fragment on day 1. c, Explant 3 days after plating. d, Edge of explant 13 days after plating showing stromal-like and phase-bright cells. e, Cardiosphere-forming cells collected from the explant after 13 days and plated on poly-d-lysine for 2 days. f, Fully formed cardiospheres on day 25, 12 days after collection of cardiosphere-forming cells. g, CDCs during passage 2, plated on fibronectin for expansion. h and i, Cell growth is expressed as number of population doublings from the time of the first harvest for specimens from nontransplant patients (h) and specimens from transplant patients (i).

The initial assessment of these patients showed shrinkage of the heart scar and regional improvements in heart function. However in the one-year follow-up the scar showed even more drastic shrinkage (-11.9 grams or -11.1% of the left ventricle). Also, several of the indicators of global heart function showed substantial improvements (end-diastolic volume – -12.7 mls and end-systolic volume – -13.2 mls).

When it come to the all-important ejection fraction, which is the percentage of blood pumped from the left ventricle, the results are a little more complicated. When the ejection factions of each patient was compared with the size of their heart scars, there was a tight correlation between the increase in ejection fraction and the shrinkage of the heart scar. See the figure below for a scatter plot of ejection fraction versus heart scar size.

(A) Scatterplot showing the natural relationship between scar size and left ventricular ejection fraction ∼5 months post-myocardial infarction (circles). Each cross symbol represents the mean values (at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal bars [obtained from all patients with magnetic resonance imaging measurements]), whereas the width of each bar equals ±SEM of scar size and left ventricular ejection fraction of CADUCEUS patients at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year; the crosses are superimposed onto the scatterplot showing prior data from post-myocardial infarction patients with variable scar sizes. The changes in left ventricular ejection fraction in CDC-treated subjects are consistent with the natural relationship between scar size and ejection fraction in convalescent myocardial infarction, whereas the changes in left ventricular ejection fraction in controls fall within the margins of variability. (B) Changes in end-diastolic volume from baseline to 1 year. (C) Changes in end-systolic volume from baseline to 1 year. CDCs = cardiosphere-derived cells; EDV = end-diastolic volume; EF = ejection fraction; ESV = end-systolic volume; LV = left ventricle.
(A) Scatterplot showing the natural relationship between scar size and left ventricular ejection fraction ∼5 months post-myocardial infarction (circles). Each cross symbol represents the mean values (at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal bars [obtained from all patients with magnetic resonance imaging measurements]), whereas the width of each bar equals ±SEM of scar size and left ventricular ejection fraction of CADUCEUS patients at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year; the crosses are superimposed onto the scatterplot showing prior data from post-myocardial infarction patients with variable scar sizes. The changes in left ventricular ejection fraction in CDC-treated subjects are consistent with the natural relationship between scar size and ejection fraction in convalescent myocardial infarction, whereas the changes in left ventricular ejection fraction in controls fall within the margins of variability. (B) Changes in end-diastolic volume from baseline to 1 year. (C) Changes in end-systolic volume from baseline to 1 year. CDCs = cardiosphere-derived cells; EDV = end-diastolic volume; EF = ejection fraction; ESV = end-systolic volume; LV = left ventricle.

Other observations included safety assessments. When the number of adverse events between the control group and CDC-receiving group were measured, there were no differences between the two groups. The patients in the CDC-receiving group were more likely to be hospitalized and had transient cases of fast heartbeats, and there was also one death in this group. However the incidence of these events were not statistically different from the control group.

From these assessments, it is clear that the CDC treatments are safe, and decreased the scar size and regional function of infarcted heart muscle. From these results, the researchers state that “These findings motivate the further exploration of CDCs in future clinical studies.

Three New Clinical Trials Examine Bone Marrow-Based Stem Cells To Treat Heart Failure


In April of 2013, the results of three clinical trials that examined the effects of bone marrow-derived stem cell treatments in patients with acute myocardial infarction (translation – a recent heart attack) or chronic heart failure. These trials were the SWISS-AMI trial, the CELLWAVE trial, and the C-CURE trial.

The SWISS-AMI trial (Circulation. 2013;127:1968-1979), which stands for the Swiss Multicenter Intracoronary Stem Cells Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction trial, was designed to examine the optimal time of stem cell administration at 2 different time points: early or 5 to 7 days versus late or 3 to 4 weeks after a heart attack. This trial is an extension of the large REPAIR-AMI, which showed that patients who tended to receive bone marrow stem cell treatments later rather than earlier had more pronounced therapeutic effects from the stem cell treatments.

SWISS-AMI examined 60 patients who received standard cardiological care after a heart attack, 58 who received bone marrow stem cells 5-7 days after a heart attack, and 49 patients who received bone marrow stem cells 3-4 weeks after their heart attacks. All stem cells were delivered through the coronary arteries by means of the same technology used to deliver a stent.

When the heart function of all three groups were analyzed, no significant differences between the three groups were observed. Those who received stem cell 5-7 days after a heart attack showed a 1.8% increase in their ejection fractions (the percentage of blood that is ejected from the ventricle with each beat) versus an average decrease of 0.4% in those who received standard care, and a 0.8% increase in those who received their stem cells 3-4 weeks after a heart attack. If these results sound underwhelming it is because they are. The standard deviations of each group so massive that these three groups essentially overlap each other. The differences are not significant from a statistical perspective. Thus the results of this study were definitely negative.

The second study, CELLWAVE (JAMA, April 17, 2013—Vol 309, No. 15, 1622-1631), was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study conducted among heart attack patients between 2005 and 2011 at Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. In this study, the damaged area of heart was pretreated with low-energy ultrasound shock waves, after which patients in each group were treated with either low dose stem cells, high-dose stem cells, or placebo. Patients also received either shock wave treatment or placebo shock wave treatment. Thus this was a very well-controlled study. Stem cells were administered through the coronary arteries, just as in the case of the SWISS-AMI study.

The results were clearly positive in this study. The stem cell + shock wave treatment groups showed definite increases in heart function above the placebo groups, and showed fewer adverse effects. The shock wave treatments seem to prime the heart tissue to receive the stem cells. The shock waves induce the release of cardiac stromal-derived factor-1, which is a potent chemoattractor of stem cells.  This is an intriguing procedure that deserves more study.

The third study, C-CURE, is definitely the most interesting of the three (Bartunek et al. JACC Vol. 61, No. 23, June 11, 2013:2329–38). In this trial, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) were isolated from bone marrow and primed with a cocktail of chemicals that pushed the stem cells towards a heart muscle fate. Then the cells were transplanted into the heart by direct injection into the heart muscle as guided by NOGA three-dimensional imaging of the heart.

After initially screening 320 patients with chronic heart failure, 15 were treated with standard care and the other 32 received the stem cell treatment. After a two-year follow-up, the results were remarkable: those who received the stem cell treatment showed an average 7% increase in ejection fraction versus 0.2% for receiving standard care, an almost 25 milliliter reduction in end systolic volume (measures degree of dilation of ventricle – not a good thing and the fact that it decreased is a very good thing) versus a 9 milliliter decrease for those receiving standard care, and were able to walk 62 meters further in 6 minutes as opposed to standard care group who walked 18 meters less in 6 minutes.

While these studies do not provide definitive answers to the bone marrow/heart treatment debate, they do extend the debate. Clearly bone marrow stem cells help some patients and do not help others. The difference between these two groups of patients continues to elude researchers. Also, how the bone marrow is processed is definitely important. When the cells are administered also seems to be important, but the exact time slot is not clear in human patients. It is also possible that some patients have poor quality bone marrow in the first place, and might be better served by allogeneic (someone else’s stem cells) treatments rather than autologous (the patient’s own stem cells) stem cell treatments.

Also, stem cell treatments for heart patients will probably need to be more sophisticated if they are to provide greater levels of healing. Heart muscle cells are required, but so are blood vessels to feed the new heart muscle. If mesenchymal stem cells work by activating resident heart stem cells, then maybe mesenchymal transplants should be accompanied by endothelial progenitor cell transplants (CD117+, CD45+ CD31+ cells from bone marrow) to provide the blood vessels necessary to replace the clogged blood vessels and the new heart muscle that is grown.

When Is the Best Time to Treat Heart Attack Patients With Stem Cells?


Several preclinical trials in laboratory animals and clinical trials have definitively demonstrated the efficacy of stem cell treatments after a heart attack. However, these same studies have left several question largely unresolved. For example, when is the best time to treat acute heart attack patients? What is the appropriate stem cell dose? What is the best way to administer these stem cells? Is it better to use a patient’s own stem cells or stem cells from someone else?

A recent clinical trial from Soochow University in Suzhou, China has addressed the question of when to treat heart attack patients. Published in the Life Sciences section of the journal Science China, Yi Huan Chen and Xiao Mei Teng and their colleagues in the laboratory of Zen Ya Shen administered bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells at different times after a heart attack. Their study also examined the effects of mesenchymal stem cells transplants at different times after a heart attack in Taihu Meishan pigs. This combination of preclinical and clinical studies makes this paper a very powerful piece of research indeed.

The results of the clinical trial came from 42 heart attack patients who were treated 3 hours after suffering a heart attack, or 1 day, 3 days, 2 weeks or 4 weeks after a heart attack. The patients were evaluated with echocardiogram to ascertain heart function and magnetic resonance imaging of the heart to determine the size of the heart scar, the thickness of the heart wall, and the amount of blood pumped per heart beat (stroke volume).

When the data were complied and analyzed, patients who received their stem cell transplants 2-4 weeks after their heart attacks fared better than the other groups. The heart function improved substantially and the size of the infarct shrank the most. 4 weeks was better than 2 weeks,

The animal studies showed very similar results.

Eight patients were selected to receive additional stem cell transplants. These patients showed even greater improvements in heart function (ejection fraction improved to an average of 51.9% s opposed to 39.3% for the controls).

These results show that 2-4 weeks constitutes the optimal window for stem cell transplantation. If the transplant is given too early, then the environment of he heart is simply too hostile to support the survival of the stem cells. However, if the transplant is performed too late, the heart has already experiences a large amount of cell death, and a stem cell treatment might be superfluous. Instead 2-4 weeks appears to be the “sweet spot” when the heart is hospitable enough to support the survival of the transplanted stem cells and benefit from their healing properties. Also, this paper shows that multiple stem cell transplants a two different times to convey additional benefits, and should be considered under certain conditions.

Umbilical Cord Stem Cells Preserve Heart Function After a Heart Attack in Mice


A consortium of Portuguese scientists have conducted an extensive examination of the effects of mesenchymal stromal cells from umbilical cord on the heart of mice that have suffered a massive heart attack. Even more remarkable is that these workers used a proprietary technique to harvest, process, and prepare the umbilical cord stem cells in the hopes that this technique would give rise to a commercial product that will be tested in human clinical trials,

Human umbilical cord tissue-derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) were obtained by means of a proprietary technology that was developed by a biomedical company called ECBio. Their product,, UCX®, consists of clean, high-quality, umbilical cord stem cells that are collected under Good Manufacturing Practices. The use of Good Manufacturing Practice means that UCX is potentially a clinical-grade product. Thus, this paper represents a preclinical evaluation of UCX.

This experiments in this paper used standard methods to give mice heart attacks that were later received injections of UCX into their heart muscle. The same UCX cells were used in experiments with cultured cells to determine their effects under more controlled conditions.

The mice that received the UCX injections into their heart muscles after suffering from a large heart attack showed preservation of heart function. Also, measurements of the numbers of dead cells in the heart muscle of heart-sick mice that did and did not receive injections of umbilical cord cells into their hearts showed that the umbilical cord stem cells preserved heart muscle cells and prevented them from dying. Additionally, the implanted umbilical cord MSCs induced the growth and formation of many small blood vessels in the infarcted area of the heart. This prevented the heart from undergoing remodeling (enlargement), and preserved heart structure and function.

When subjected to a battery of tests on cultured cells, UCX activated cardiac stem cells, which are the resident stem cell population in the heart. Implanted UCX cells activated the proliferation of cardiac stem cells and their differentiation into heart muscle cells. There was no evidence that umbilical cord MSCs differentiated into heart muscle cells and engrafted into the heart. Rather UCX seems to help the heart by means of paracrine mechanisms, which simply means that they secrete healing molecules in the heart and help the heart heal itself.

In conclusion, Diana Santos Nascimento, the lead author of this work, and her colleagues state that, “the method of UCX® extraction and subsequent processing has been recently adapted to advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) standards, as defined by the guideline on the minimum quality data for certification of ATMP. Given that our work constitutes a proof-of-principle for the cardioprotective effects UCX® exert in the context of MI, a future clinical usage of this off-the-shelf cellular product can be envisaged.”

Preclinical trials with larger animals should come next, and after that, hopefully, the first human clinical trials will begin.

Nanotubules Link Damaged Heart Cells With Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Both of Their Benefit


Mesenchymal stem cells are found throughout the body in bone marrow, fat, tendons, muscle, skin, umbilical cord, and many other tissues. These cells have the capacity to readily differentiate into bone, fat, and cartilage, and can also form smooth muscles under particular conditions.

Several animal studies and clinical trials have demonstrated that mesenchymal stem cells can help heal the heart after a heart attack. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) tend to help the heart by secreting a variety of particular molecules that stimulate heart muscle survival, proliferation, and healing.

Given these mechanisms of healing, is there a better way to get these healing molecules to the heart muscle cells?

A research group from INSERM in Creteil, France has examined the use of tunneling nanotubes to connect MSCs with heart muscle cells. These experiments have revealed something remarkable about MSCs.

Florence Figeac and her colleagues in the laboratory of Ann-Marie Rodriguez used a culture system that grew fat-derived MSCs and with mouse heart muscle cells. They induced damage in the heart muscle cells and then used tunneling nanotubes to connect the fat-based MSCs.

They discovered two things. First of all, the MSCs secreted a variety of healing molecules regardless of their culture situation. However, when the MSCs were co-cultured with damaged heart muscle cells with tunneling nanotubes, the secretion of healing molecules increased. The tunneling nanotubes somehow passed signals from the damaged heart muscle cells to the MSCs and these signals jacked up secretion of healing molecules by the MSCs.

The authors referred to this as “crosstalk” between the fat-derived MSCs and heart muscle cells through the tunneling nanotubes and it altered the secretion of heart protective soluble factors (e.g., VEGF, HGF, SDF-1α, and MCP-3). The increased secretion of these molecules also maximized the ability of these stem cells to promote the growth and formation of new blood vessels and recruit bone marrow stem cells.

After these experiments in cell culture, Figeac and her colleagues used these cells in a living animal. They discovered that the fat-based MSCs did a better job at healing the heart if they were previously co-cultured with heart muscle cells.

Exposure of the MSCs to damaged heart muscle cells jacked up the expression of healing molecules, and therefore, these previous exposures made these MSCs better at healing hearts in comparison to naive MSCs that were not previously exposed to damaged heart muscle.

Thus, these experiments show that crosstalk between MSCs and heart muscle cells, mediated by nanotubes, can optimize heart-based stem cells therapies.

Encapsulation of Cardiac Stem Cells and Their Effect on the Heart


Earlier I blogged about an experiment that encapsulated mesenchymal stem cells into alginate hydrogels and implanted them into the hearts of rodents after a heart attack. The encapsulated mesenchymal stem cells showed much better retention in the heart and survival and elicited better healing and recovery of cardiac function than their non-encapsulated counterparts.

This idea seems to be catching on because another paper reports doing the same thing with cardiac stem cells extracted from heart biopsies. Audrey Mayfield and colleagues in the laboratory of Darryl Davis at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and in collaboration with Duncan Steward and his colleagues from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute used cardiac stem cells extracted from human patients that were encased in agarose hydrogels to treat mice that had suffered heart attacks. These experiments were reported in the journal Biomaterials (2013).

Cardiac stem cells (CSCs) were extracted from human patients who were already undergoing open heart procedures. Small biopsies were taken from the “atrial appendages” and cultured in cardiac explants medium for seven days.

atrial appendage

Migrating cells in the culture were harvested and encased in low melt agarose supplemented with human fibrinogen. To form a proper hydrogel, the cells/agarose mixture was added drop-wise to dimethylpolysiloxane (say that fast five times) and filtered. Filtration guaranteed that only small spheres (100 microns) were left. All the larger spheres were not used.

Those CSCs that were not encased in hydrogels were used for gene profiling studies. These studies showed that cultured CSCs expressed a series of cell adhesion molecules known as “integrins.” Integrins are 2-part proteins that are embedded in the cell membrane and consist of an “alpha” and “beta” subunit. Integrin subunits, however, come in many forms, and there are multiple alpha subunits and multiple beta subunits.

integrin-actin2

This mixing and matching of integrin subunits allows integrins to bind many different types of substrates. Consequently it is possible to know what kinds of molecules these cells will stick to based on the types of integrins they express. The gene prolifing experiments showed that CSC expressed integrin alpha-5 and the beta 1 and 3 subunits, which shows that CSC can adhere to fibronectin and fibrinogen.

fibronectin

fibrinogen-cleave

When encapsulated CSCs were supplemented with fibrinogen and fibronectin, CSCs showed better survival than their unencapsulated counterparts, and grew just as fast ans unencapsulated CSCs. Other experiments showed that the encapsulated CSCs made just as many healing molecules as the unencapsulated CSCs, and were able to attract circulating angiogenic (blood vessel making) cells. Also, the culture medium of the encapsulated cells was also just as potent as culture medium from suspended CSCs.

With these laboratory successes, encapsulated CSCs were used to treat non-obese diabetic mice with dysfunctional immune systems that had suffered a heart attack. The CSCs were injected into the heart, and some mice received encapsulated CSCs, other non-encapsulated CSCs, and others only buffer.

The encapsulated CSCs showed better retention in the heart; 2.5 times as many encapsulated CSCs were retained in the heart in comparison to the non-encapsulated CSCs. Also, the ejection fraction of the hearts that received the encapsulated CSCs increased from about 35% to almost 50%. Those hearts that had received the non-encapsulated CSCs showed an ejection fraction that increased from around 33% to about 39-40%. Those mice that had received buffer only showed deterioration of heart function (ejection fraction decreased from 36% to 28%). Also, the heart scar was much smaller in the hearts that had received encapsulated CSCs. Less than 10% of the heart tissue was scarred in those mice that received encapsulated CSCs, but 16% of the heart was scarred in the mice that received free CSCs. Those mice that received buffer had 20% of their hearts scarred.

Finally, did encapsulated CSCs engraft into the heart muscle? CSCs have been shown to differentiate into heart-specific tissues such as heart muscle, blood vessels, and heart connective tissue. Encapsulation might prevent CSCs from differentiating into heart-specific cell types and connecting to other heart tissues and integrating into the existing tissues. However, at this point, w have a problem with this paper. The text states that “encapsulated CSCs provided a two-fold increase in the number of engrafted human CSCs as compared transplant of non-encapsulated CSCs.” The problem is that the bar graft shown in the paper shows that the non-encapsulated CSCs have twice the engraftment of the capsulated CSCs. I think the reviewers might have missed this one. Nevertheless, the other data seem to show that encapsulation did not affect engraftment of the CSCs.

The conclusion of this paper is that “CSC capsulation provides an easy, fast and non-toxic way to treat the cells prior to injection through a clinically acceptable process.”

Hopefully large-animal tests will come next. If these are successful, then maybe human trials should be on the menu.