title: Scaffolds for Intracerebral Grafting of Neural Progenitor Cells After Cerebral Infarction: A Systematic Review.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Intracerebral grafting of neural progenitor cells is a promising potential treatment to improve recovery after stroke, but the structural disruption and cavitation of brain tissue that occurs creates an unfavorable environment for graft cell survival. To overcome this obstacle, scaffold materials have been used as extracellular matrix to provide structural support for the transplanted cells. Many materials could potentially be used as scaffolds for this application.
  
  
  METHODS
  We performed a systematic review to determine the available evidence supporting specific scaffolds for neural progenitor cell grafting after stroke. Articles were identified with a MeSH search on PubMed. Relevant references and "related articles" of selected manuscripts were also reviewed. Full original articles published prior to May 2013 presenting unique experimental data describing intracerebral grafting of neural progenitor cells in a scaffold after cerebral infarction were included in our study. All selected articles were reviewed thoroughly by the authors for relevant data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We found reports of use of scaffolds composed of polyglycolic acid, poly [lactic-co-glycolic acid] particles (with and without VEGF), hyaluronan-heparin-collagen hydrogel, Matrigel, collagen and extracellular matrix derived from porcine brain and urinary bladder. While multiple beneficial effects were reported, the optimal scaffold is unclear as we found no direct comparisons.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We conclude that multiple scaffolds appear promising for neural progenitor cell grafting after stroke, but further research is needed to optimize this neurorestorative approach. Thus, we hope to provide a basic understanding of the state of scaffolds for neural progenitor cell grafting after stroke and to encourage further research. Based on the methods of the discussed studies, we propose a standardized set of outcomes that would best be used to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of a given scaffold.
authors.affiliation: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
authors.forename: Laura K
authors.initials: LK
authors.lastname: Cohen
authors.affiliation: Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.
authors.forename: Matthew B
authors.initials: MB
authors.lastname: Jensen
keywords: Bio Scaffold; Extracellular Matrix; Grafting; Hydrogel; Neural Progenitor Cells; Neural Stem Cells; Scaffold; Stroke; Transplantation
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2012 Oct;33(30):7435-46
references.pmid: 22818980
references.citation: Neurobiol Dis. 2010 Feb;37(2):259-66
references.pmid: 19931616
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2010 Mar;31(8):2105-20
references.pmid: 20005569
references.citation: Front Biosci. 2008 Jan 01;13:806-21
references.pmid: 17981590
references.citation: Circulation. 2011 Feb 1;123(4):e18-e209
references.pmid: 21160056
references.citation: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010 Mar;30(3):534-44
references.pmid: 19826433
references.citation: Aging Cell. 2010 Dec;9(6):1076-83
references.pmid: 20883527
references.citation: Neurobiol Dis. 2010 Feb;37(2):275-83
references.pmid: 19822211
references.citation: Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Sep;24(7):636-44
references.pmid: 20424193
references.citation: Exp Neurol. 2006 May;199(1):37-41
references.pmid: 16427047
references.citation: Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2010 May;293(5):911-7
references.pmid: 20191618
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2002 Nov;20(11):1111-7
references.pmid: 12379868
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2012 Apr;33(10):2858-71
references.pmid: 22244696