Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Stem Cells. Aug 26, 2022; 14(8): 658-679
Published online Aug 26, 2022. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v14.i8.658
Table 1 Characteristics of hematopoietic stem cells
Ref.
Year
Hematopoietic stem cells
Transplantation
Donor
Source
Lineage
Cell dose
Route
Volume (µL)
Lee et al[9]2021Mice (C57BL/6)BMNC1 × 107IVNR
Huang et al[10]2021HumanUCBMNC1 × 107IV; IB200; NR
Yin et al[8]2020HumanUCBCD34+2.5 × 103; 5 × 103; 1 × 104; 2 × 104IV; IBNR; 10
Choi et al[11]2020Mice (C57BL/6)BMNC1 × 107IV200
Trento et al[12]2017Mice (C57BL/6 CD45.1)BMNC2 × 106IVNR
Abbuehl et al[13]2017Mice (FVB Actin-GFP)BMNC5 × 106IV100
Kim et al[14]2016Mice (C57BL/6J-Pep3b-Ly5.1 Pep3b)BMNC2 × 104NRNR
Futrega et al[15]2016HumanUCBCD34+5 × 104IV; IB100; 10
van der Garde et al[16]2015HumanUCBCD34+2 × 105IVNR
Fernández-García et al[17]2015Mice (P3D2F1 H2b/d CD45.1)BMLSK1.5 × 104NRNR
Chen et al[18]2015Mice (C57BL/6)BMNC5 × 106IVNR
Chen et al[19]2014HumanUCBCD34+1 × 105IVNR
Wu et al[20]2013HumanUCBNC1 × 106IV250
Lim et al[21]2013HumanUCBMNC1 × 107IV200
Lee et al[22]2013HumanUCBCD34+2 × 105IV150-200
Kornblit et al[23]2013Dog (beagle)BMNC1.8-5.3 × 108/kgIV50 mL
Fortin et al[24]2013Mice (B6.SJL-PtrcaPep3b/BoyJ CD45.1)BMNC2 × 106IVNR
Carrancio et al[25]2013HumanUCBCD34+1 × 105IV; IB200; 20
Table 2 Characteristics of mesenchymal stem cells
Ref.
Mesenchymal stem cells
Transplantation
Donor
Source
Surface marker
Passage
Modification
Cell dose
Route
Volume (µL)
Lee et al[9]HumanTonsilNegative: CD14, CD34, CD45, HLA-DR, CD40, CD80, CD86 CD11b, CD21, CD23, CD35 and CD54P3-5MMP3-knockdown1 × 106IVNR
Positive: CD73, CD95 and CD105
Huang et al[10]HumanUCBNegative: CD34 and CD45P4NA5 × 106; 1 × 106IV; IBNR
Positive: CD90, CD105 and CD75
Yin et al[8]HumanUCB NRNRGFP; EGF; FGF2; PDGFB5 × 105IB10
Choi et al[11]HumanTonsilNegative: CD14, CD34, CD45, HLA-DR, CD40, CD80, CD86 CD11b, CD21, CD23, CD35 and CD54P3-5NA2 × 106IV200
Positive: CD73, CD95 and CD105
Trento et al[12]Mice (C57BL/6 CD45.2 orNos2-/-)BMNegative: CD45Max P8 Nos2-/-2 × 105IVNR
Positive: PDGFRα and Sca-1
Abbuehl et al[13]Mice (FVB Insulin-GFP)BMNegative: CD105NRNA1 × 104IB3
Positive: CD73 and Sca1
Kim et al[14]Mice (C57BL/6J-Ly 5.2 BL6)BMNegative: CD45Min P2NA2 × 105NRNR
Futrega et al[15]HumanBMNegative: CD45, CD34 and HLA-DRP3NA5 × 105IV; IB100; 10
Positive: CD44, CD90, CD73, CD105 and CD146
van der Garde et al[16]HumanFLNegative: CD34NRNA1 × 106IVNR
Fernández-García et al[17]Mice (B6D2F1, H2b/d, CD45.2)ATNegative: CD34, CD45.1 and CD80Low: Sca-1P5-8NA2 × 105; 4 × 105; 6-10 × 105IVNR
Positive: CD29, CD44, CD73, CD90.2, CD105, CD106, CD144, and CD166
Chen et al[18]Mice (C57BL/6)BMNRP3-8CXCR4 5 × 105IVNR
Chen et al[19]HumanBMNegative: CD34 and CD45NRSDF1; HOXB48 × 105IVNR
Positive: CD90 and CD44
Wu et al[20]HumanUCBNegative: CD14, CD31, CD34, CD45, and HLA-DRNRNA1 × 106IV250
Positive: CD13, CD29, CD44, CD73, CD90, and CD105
Lim et al[21]HumanUCBNegative: CD14, CD34 and CD45P4NA5 × 106IV200
Positive: CD73 and CD105
Lee et al[22]HumanUCB; AT; BMNegative: CD14, CD34, and CD45NRNA1 × 106IV150-200
Positive: CD73, CD90, and CD105
Kornblit et al[23]Dog (beagle)BMNRP1NA4.8-10 × 108/kgIV50 mL
Fortin et al[24]MiceBMNegative: CD45 and CD31NRsolG-CSFR1.5 × 107IPNR
Positive: CD44 and CD90dim
Carrancio et al[25]HumanBMPositive: CD73, CD90, CD105, CD44, and CD166P3NA5 × 105IV; IB200; 20
Table 3 Bone marrow cotransplantation model
Ref.
HSC donor
MSC donor
Host
Conditioning
Source
Dose (Gy)
MSC immunogenicity
Groups
Lee et al[9]Mice (C57BL/6)HumanMice (BALB/c H-2d)ChemotherapyBu/Cy25 mg/kg/4 dXenogeneicControl; HSC; HSC + T-MSC; HSC + MMP3kdT-MSC
100 mg/kg/2 d
Huang et al[10]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID)TBI60-Co2.7XenogeneicControl; HSC; HSC + UCB-MSC (IV/IB)
Yin et al[8]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID; NOG)TBINR2.5XenogeneicHSC; HSC + GFP-MSC; HSC + EGF-MSC; HSC + FGF2-MSC; HSC + PDGFB-MSC (IV/IB)
Choi et al[11]Mice (C57BL/6)HumanMice (BALB/c)ChemotherapyBu/Cy20 mg/kg/4 dXenogeneicControl; HSC; HSC + T-MSC
100 mg/kg/2 d
Trento et al[12]Mice (C57BL/6 CD45.1)Mice (C57BL/6 CD45.2 orNos2-/-)Mice (C57BL/6 CD45.2)TBINR8AllogeneicHSC; HSC + MSC; HSC + Nos2−/−MSC
Abbuehl et al[13]Mice (FVB Actin-GFP)Mice (FVB Insulin-GFP)Mice (FVB Insulin-GFP)TBINR2 × 4.5AllogeneicHSC; HSC + MSC
Kim et al[14]Mice (C57BL/6J-Pep3b-Ly5.1 Pep3b)Mice (C57BL/6J-Ly 5.2 BL6)Mice (C57BL/6J-Ly 5.2 BL6)TBINR9XenogeneicHSC; HSC + MSC (NSS/SS) direct or priming
Futrega et al[15]HumanHumanMice (NSG)TBI137-Cs2.5XenogeneicHSC (IV/IB); HSC + MSC; HSC + MSC-spheroids (IB)
van der Garde et al[16]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID)TBINR3.5XenogeneicHSC; HSC + MSC; Ex/TPO-HSC; Ex/TPO-HSC + MSC
Fernández-García et al[17]Mice (P3D2F1 H2b/d CD45.1)Mice (B6D2F1,H2b/d, CD45.2)Mice (B6D2F CD45.2)TBINR5-7AllogeneicHSC; HSC + AT-MSC
Chen et al[18]Mice (C57BL/6)Mice (C57BL/6)Mice (BALB/c H-2d)TBI60-Co7.5AllogeneicHSC; HSC + EGFP-MSC; HSC + CXCR4-MSC
Chen et al[19]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID/IL2rγnull)TBI60-Co3.5XenogeneicControl; HSC; HSC + MSC; HSC + SDF-1-MSC; HSC + HOXB4-MSC; HSC + SDF1-HOXB4-MSC
Wu et al[20]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID)TBINR3.5XenogeneicHSC; HSC + UCB-MSC
Lim et al[21]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID)TBICs2.5XenogeneicHSC; HSC + hPTH; HSC + UCB-MSC + hPTH
Lee et al[22]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID)TBINR3XenogeneicHSC; HSC + BM-MSC; HSC + AT-MSC; HSC + UCB-MSC
Kornblit et al[23]Dog (beagle)Dog (beagle)Dog (Beagle)TBI60-Co9.2AllogeneicControl; HSC; HSC + MSC (unrelated or DLA-id MSC)
Fortin et al[24]Mice (B6.SJL-PtrcaPep3b/BoyJ CD45.1)MiceMice (C57BL/6J)TBI60-Co8AllogeneicHSC; HSC + MSC; HSC + solG-CSFR-MSC
Carrancio et al[25]HumanHumanMice (NOD/SCID)TBICs3XenogeneicHSC (IV/IB); HSC IV + MSC (IV/IB)
Table 4 Cotransplantation evaluation
Ref.
Objective
Therapy evaluation
Evaluation technique
Evaluation time (d)
Outcome
Conclusion
Lee et al[9]Evaluate cotransplantation of HSCs and T-MSCs and influence of MMP3 expressionChimerismFC10Only the HSC + T-MSC group had a significant increase in frequency of H-2d cells in PB receptorCotransplantation of T-MSCs with intact expression of MMP3 increased homing and engraftment of HSCs, as well as blood cell recovery and survival
The HSC + MMP3kdT-MSC group did not present any alteration
Hematopoietic reconstitutionBC24The HSC + T-MSC group had the highest number of circulating WBCs and RBCs and similar level to the control group
HomingFC1The groups that received T-MSCs presented higher homing independently of expression of MMP3
CellularityH&E24The cellularity of the BM only was significantly increased in the HSC + T-MSC group
SurvivalKaplan-Meier estimator24The HSC + T-MSC group had a higher survival rate (71%) in comparison to the HSC + MMP3kdT-MSC group (38%)
Huang et al[10]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and UCB-MSCs in an iron overload modelChimerismFC42Cotransplantation of HSCs with UCB-MSCs increased the frequency of CD45+ cells in BM, independently of route, and presented a higher frequency of CD34+ only with IB routeCotransplantation of HSCs with UCB-MSCs increased the engraftment and the proliferation of UCB-MNCs, improving their differentiation in the iron overload model independently of the administration rote
DistributionFluorescence42HSCs in the IV group accumulated in the spleen but not BM, and in the IB group, accumulation was mainly in BM
Expression of hematopoietic cytokinesIHC42Cotransplantation of HSCs with UCB-MSCs increased expression of VEGF-A, OPN, and SDF-1 independently of route
SurvivalKaplan-Meier estimator42The HSC + UCB-MSC group via IB had a higher survival rate
Yin et al[8]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSC and MSC expressing EGF, FGF2 or PDGFBChimerismFC84There was no difference in the frequency of CD34+ and CD45+ between the HSC + MSC and HSC groupsBM treated with PDGFB-MSCs improved the self-renewal of human HSCs in primary recipients, leading to superior engraftment in secondary transplantation
PDGFB-MSC significantly increased the frequency of CD45+ and CD34+ human cells in comparison with HSC group, except CD34+ IV
The FGF2-MSC group had a significant increase in CD45+ by IB route compared with the HSC group
PDGFB-MSC promoted a higher frequency of CD45+ in secondary transplantations
Choi et al[11]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and T-MSCs in thymus regenerationSurvivalKaplan–Meier estimator40The HSC + T-MSC group had a higher survival rateCotransplantation of HSCs and T-MSCs improved survival rate and restored the thymus structure and increased the diversity of thymus-derived T cells
Thymus regenerationTissue volumetry3, 10 and 40In 10 d, the thymuses of the HSC + T-MSC group were larger
In 40 d, the thymuses of all groups returned to a size similar to the control thymus
HistologyHighest cellularity and better-defined structures in the HSC + T-MSC group
IHCThe HSC + T-MSC group presented more CD3+ cells
Trento et al[12]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSC and Nos2−/− MSC in the differentiation of myeloid cellsChimerismFC13There was no difference in the frequency of CD45.1+ myeloid cells in the BM and in the spleen of the recipient animalsThere was no difference in the frequency of neutrophils and eosinophil between the groups, macrophages and monocytes were more numerous in the HSC + MSC group
Hematopoietic reconstitutionFC13There was an increase of the frequency of macrophages and monocytes in the HSC + MSC group compared to the HSC and HSC + Nos2−/− MSC group
Abbuehl et al[13]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCsChimerismFC112Cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCs increased the frequency and number of GFP+ LSK, HSCs (LSK CD48 CD150+) and LT- HSCs (LSK CD48- CD150+ CD34) cells in secondary receptors of HSCs derived from the HSC + MSC groupCotransplantation of HSCs with MSCs significantly increased number of functional HSCs derived from donors
Hematopoietic reconstitutionBC7 and 14Highest number of lymphocytes and neutrophils in 14 d in the HSC + MSC group
Kim et al[14]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and stimulated MSCsChimerismFC64 to 84Percentage of CD45.1+ and number of LSK CD45.1 cells increased in the HSC + MSC-SS groupCotransplantation of HSCs with MSCs under stimulatory condition increased HSC engraftment
Percentage of CD45.1+ lymphoid cells was equal in the HSC and HSC + MSC-NSS groups, however there was a reduction in the HSC + MSC-SS group IB route, the reverse was observed in myeloid cells
Hematopoietic reconstitutionIHC64 to 84Only observed in the HSC + MSC-SS group
Futrega et al[15]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSC-spheroidsChimerismFC56 (weekly)Reduction of CD45+ in the HSC + MSC group in spleen comparing IB to IV routeHSC transplantation by IB route improved IB engraftment, but did not contribute to high levels of systemic engraftment in xenogeneic animal models and cotransplantation with MSC-spheroids enhanced supportive environment to retention of HSC in IB route
Significant reduction of CD34+ in the MSC-spheroids group in PB and spleen in IB route
Increase in engraftment of CD45+ and CD34+ in IB administration of the HSCs with MSCs or without MSCs in comparison to distal bone
van der Garde et al[16]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs expanded with TPO and MSCsChimerismFC42The HSC + MSC group had significantly increased CD45+ in the receptors while TPO only induced engraftmentCotransplantation of MSCs can improve engraftment after 6 wk, whereas TPO expansion improves early platelet recovery
Platelet recoveryFC14 and 42In short term, use of Ex/TPO-HSCs with or without MSCs increased platelet number, in long term, only the presence of MSCs with HSCs had an effect on platelet formation
Fernández-García et al[17]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and AT-MSCsChimerismFC28, 56, and 84Cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCs resulted in an increase of CD45.1+ in the receptor dose-dependently in the mild conditioning (5 Gy)Cotransplantation with low doses of AT-MSCs accelerated early HSC engraft, but only higher dose of MSCs improved later HSC engraftment, as also long-term repopulating HSCs, and homing of HSCs, facilitating hematopoietic reconstitution
Highest frequency of CD45.1+ in secondary and tertiary receptors, using HSCs + higher doses of AT-MSCs
HomingFC2, 4, and 24 hCo-infusion of AT-MSCs increased homing of LSK CD45.1+ cells in BM
Chen et al[18]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCs overexpressing CXCR4ChimerismFC7 and 14At 7 d, frequency of H-2b cells in the receptors was lower in the HSC + CXCR4-MSC group, increasing equally in all groups at 14 dCotransplantation of HSCs with CXCR4-MSCs accelerates hematopoietic reconstitution, promotes HSC engraftment, PB cell recovery, and BM hyperplasia
Hematopoietic reconstitutionBC7 to 21The HSC + MSC group increased reconstitution of leukocytes and platelets, and HSC + CXCR4-MSC group had more rapid effect
CellularityHE7 and 14Highest cellularity in the BM and in the spleen of the receptors of CXCR4-MSC, predominantly myeloid in BM
Chen et al[19]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCs modified to express SDF-1/HOXB4ChimerismFC28The presence of CD45+ was higher in the groups that received MSCs, with emphasis in HSC + SDF1-HOXB4-MSC groupHSC + SDF1-HOXB4-MSC group significantly increased engraftment of HSCs, hematopoietic recovery, and rapid recovery of BM cellularity
Hematopoietic reconstitutionBC7, 14, 21, and 28In the HSC + SDF1-HOXB4-MSC group, the WBCs, PLT and HGB levels returned to normal
The HSC + SDF-1-MSC group did not present total recovery, although the WBC, PLT and HGB levels recovered more quickly than in other groups
CellularityWright staining14 and 28The cellularity was significantly higher in the HSC + SDF-1-MSC and HSC + HOXB4-MSC groups
SurvivalKaplan–Meier estimator14 and 28The HSC + SDF1-HOXB4-MSC group had higher survival rate than other groups
Wu et al[20]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCsChimerismFC56 to 77The HSC + UCB-MSC group had higher frequency of CD45+ in the PB and BMThe use of UCB-MSCs in cotransplantation resulted in better engraftment of HSCs
Lim et al[21]Evaluate cotransplantation of HSCs treated with hPTH and MSCsHematopoietic reconstitutionBC28, 42 and 49There was no difference in the number of WBCs, RBCs and PLTs in the groups over timeCotransplantation of HSCs with MSCs could lead to an increase of hematopoietic reconstitution and may be a synergistic effect between MSCs and hPTH
CellularityFC49There was difference only in the HSC and HSC + UCB-MSC groups treated with hPTH
CD34+ did not differ between the groups, but myeloid and lymphoid lineages were markedly higher in HSC + UCB-MSC + hPTH group
HE56Highest cellularity of the BM in the groups that received hPTH with or without MSCs
Lee et al[22]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and AT-MSCs, UCB-MSCs or BM-MSCsChimerismFC42 or 70The groups that received MSCs, independently of the source, had an increase of the frequency of CD45+ cellsCotransplantation of HSCs with BM-MSCs, AT-MSCs or UCB-MSCs increased engraftment, and UCB-MSCs had higher proliferation rates
Kornblit et al[23]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCs with identical DLA or notHematopoietic reconstitutionBC100There was no difference in the number of PLTs and granulocytes between the groupsCotransplantation of HSCs with MSCs did not increase engraftment of HSCs, and the MSCs with identical DLA or not was safe
Fortin et al[24]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCs expressing solG-CSFRChimerismFC13 and 45In the HSC + MSC group, there was a higher number of CD45+ compared to other groupsIn the cotransplantation of HSCs with MSCs, the presence of solG-CSFR increased the homing and accelerated hematopoietic reconstitution
HomingFC18 hThe homing was significantly higher in the HSC + solG-CSFR-MSC group than the HSC + MSC group, and in this last group the increase did not differ from the control group
Carrancio et al[25]Evaluate the cotransplantation of HSCs and MSCs according to the routes (IB and IV)ChimerismFC21 and 42The number of CD45+ was significantly higher in the HSC + MSC s by IV route (at 21 d), but at 42 d, this increase occurred in the HSC + MSC group by IB route in the local area of administration, followed by the HSC + MSC group by IVMSCs increased hematopoietic engraftment when cotransplanted by both routes (IV/IB)