Abstract
Background aims. Bone marrow-derived cells (BMDC) form a significant portion of regenerating epithelial tissue. The purpose of this study was to determine whether exogenous BMDC (containing stroma, stem and progenitor cells), introduced systemically or within the injury site, could enhance the injury repair response. Methods. Excisional wounds (10-mm diameter) were treated by systemic (intravenous; i.v.) and local (subcutaneous; s.c.) administration of BMDC (10–20 × 106/100 μL phosphate-buffered saline). Young and aged BMDC and recipients were studied. Results. Young BMDC (2 months old) increased the healing rate compared with older BMDC (1 year old), as measured by the rate of healing and the percentage of healed tissue. Young recipients had statistically better healing efficiency than older recipients. When old BMDC were used, young recipients had a better healing ability than older recipients. In addition, when the size of the healed tissue, the area of repigmentation and hair growth at the injury site were compared, young BMDC and young recipients had superior effects compared with old BMDC and old recipients. Conclusions. These results demonstrate that cellular therapy is important for wound healing in older recipients that do not heal significantly without intervention. BMDC injections result in normal healing, indistinguishable from young recipients. Significantly, a single injection into the wound margin is sufficient to reverse the wounding process and promote normal wound healing. Although younger recipients eventually healed without therapy, BMDC injections accelerated the process, reduced scarring and increased hair regrowth. These findings provide insight into the treatment of non-healing epithelial tissue with BMDC.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by a grant from The Jerome LeJeune Foundation, and in part by a Feasibility Study Grant, Center on Injury Mechanisms and Related Response, College of Nursing, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Disclosure of interest: None.
Notice of correction
The Early Online version of this article published online ahead of print on 29 Mar 2012 contained errors in the abstract. In lines 23, 24 and 25 the word ‘patients’ should have read ‘recipients’. The errors have been corrected in this version.